Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.

Subject: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Jun 05 - 06:17 AM

From Hamish Birchall

The pub trade won a 'landmark victory' yesterday (Fri 24 June) after a High
Court judge ruled that Canterbury City Council's licensing policy was
unlawful.

The action was brought by the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA), the
Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers and the BII. They argued that
Canterbury Council's licensing policy was in breach of the new Licensing Act
because it was too prescriptive, set broad blanket conditions and misled
applicants about what they had to do to be granted a licence.

Among other things, the pub trade had argued that Canterbury's policy
exceeded the requirements of the Act in requiring conditions, such as a
'capacity limit', which unlawfully duplicated provision under separate
legislation, such as health and safety legislation.
See article in the online trade magazine, The Publican:
http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=17731&d=32&h=24&f=23&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Jun 05 - 06:20 AM

From the Publican

The pub trade has won a landmark legal case after a High Court judge ruled that a council's licensing policy was unlawful.

Licensees, pub companies and brewers across the country hope the ruling, announced this morning, will now force other councils to back down from policies which have gone beyond the powers granted to them under the Licensing Act.

The action was brought by the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA), the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers and the BII, who contended that Canterbury Council's licensing policy was too prescriptive, set broad blanket conditions and misled applicants about what they had to do to be granted a licence – and as a result was in breach of the Act.

Dr Martin Rawlings (pictured), director of pub and leisure at the BBPA, said: "In delivering his judgement Mr Justice Richards made it clear that the industry has received a successful and substantial outcome to their claim for judicial review. He stated in his ruling, 'It is sufficient that my judgement speaks for itself, not just to the council [Canterbury] but also to the other licensing authorities whose policies are under examination.'"

Mr Rawlings said most local authorities were working positively with the industry, but a number had used their licensing policies to impose "unnecessary and unlawful conditions".

"We trust they will all now be studying and considering this judgement and amending their policies and practices accordingly," he said.

Canterbury City Council said it would now review its policy at the end of the transitional period in August - which it claimed it had already agreed to do in the light of experience gained so far.

"Mr Justice Richards has emphasised that while a council's licensing policy should not dictate to applicants what operating standards they must propose when they apply for a licence, the council may firmly express what it expects an applicant to put forward," said a spokesman.

"The council may also indicate that it is likely to take a firm stance if objections to the applicant's proposal lead to a hearing before its licensing committee. These principles will be followed in the re-drafting of the Council's policy to promote consistency, certainty and clarity for the industry, and local residents alike."

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jun 05 - 07:01 AM

This is exactly what Hamish Birchall, Bob Marshall-Andrews, Richard Bridge, myself, and a host of others predicted.

For a couple of years we repeatedly warned Kim Howells, and Ronnie Bridgett (DCMS) that some councils could not be trusted to implement the new act as it was intended they should.

We were patronised, told that we were panicking unnecessarily, and ultimately ignored. The act was passed without discussion with interested parties involved in live music, and, again as we predicted, it now takes an expensive court case to bring them to heel.

Once again, a hastily constructed, and ill conceived, piece of legislation from this government makes a mockery of law, justice, and fairness. Once again civil rights such as freedom of expression are eroded by the nanny state.

Venues have already been lost to this stupidity, and many more will undoubtedly be lost in the future.

When will parliament recognise the damage they have done, and set up the review they promised? Probably when it's too late to reverse the harm.

Tourists, do come and visit England, the silent nation.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jun 05 - 08:08 AM

We also wait with interest to see if Canterbury will appeal: I am concerned that there may be good grounds for them to do so. The point (although not appearing well from the judgement) would seem to be that the actual policy adopted was outside the ambit of the discretion permitted by the Act. The Act, of course, merely requires councils to "have regard" to the guidance, and that leaves it wide open for a council to "have regard" to the guidance but reach a decision apparently at variance with it, either at a policy level or at an individual decision level.

And the collective of local authorities probably have more money to spend litigating than the British Beer and Pub Association do.

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: GUEST,Hen Harrier
Date: 26 Jun 05 - 08:41 AM

I wonder, where do Campaign for Real Ale stand on this issue?

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: Leadfingers
Date: 26 Jun 05 - 09:07 AM

How does this affect the 'Live Acoustic Music' in Public Houses ??

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Jun 05 - 09:47 AM

So many questions and still so few definite answers.

We will probably have to find a pub currently providing live acoustic music (like a session) - or wishing to start this which found a that a council was preventing it from happening - after a Premises Licence application. And on what grounds they were doing this.

There must also be implications for the small premises aspect of the Act - where for live acoustic music to be eligible for the limited conditions that can be placed - the capacity must first be established - if the Act itself does not enable a Council to do this?

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Jun 05 - 10:43 AM

Perhaps it may be useful to point out how safe capacities are currently handled.

It is possible for safe capacities to be set - regardless of whether premises stage entertainment or not. However Councils have tended to only impose safe capacities on the premises that apply for the the Public Entertainment Licence (PEL).

It was always a fear that the - perfectly sensible measure of setting a maximum limit to these public places - would continue - under the new Act - to be limited only to premises wishing and applying to stage entertainment.

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: ET
Date: 26 Jun 05 - 03:19 PM

Will the Government ever learn - 750 new criminal offences under new labour - Criminal Justice Acts coming so fast that they repeal previous acts before they come into force - and a cultural secretary, Tessa Jowell who does not beleive in heritage and has never been to an English Heritage site - and the Licensing Act 2003 which de-regulates to the point that the previous single sheet applciation form now takes, with guidance, about 200 sheets and a lawyer to complete.

I note the contrast with Scotland - McEwens live music promotion in Scottish Pubs. (Something of a contrast to Sam Smiths dead silence campaign in its English Pubs.) But then Scotland cares about tourism and heritage.

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Jun 05 - 03:26 PM

But then Scotland cares about tourism and heritage.

Sadly - I think that Central Government also care about tourism and heritage ---- in Scotland............

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 02:51 AM

Don / Richard, what is the theposition on the license applications down your way - ie The Canopus, Greyhound etc. Have any of them applied for and got the free entertainment provision yet ?

Does anyone know of cases where councils look like granting it ?

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 03:31 AM

Pehaps the trouble will not be with applications that fail but more with applications that will not even be made.

We know that any regulated entertainment will be prevented for the lack of this permission - but the question to pose your local authority is what is the situation for non-amplified sessions etc - in places with Premises Licenses but without entertainment permission (which is looking to be the majority of them).

This is the area that needs to be tested. If LAs choose (initially)not to try and prevent such events - we should not relax - as they may later feel that they will have to take action. Then (at best) we will be back to the same 'patchy' and unsatisfactory situation that exists now.

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: fair maiden of nottingham
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 05:00 AM

hi all just to let you know my tempory web site is back up.
with pics of the Greyhound Pub Maidstone, Knockholt june 2005 and Dave Bryants BBQ june.

http://www.ideasthatsell.co.uk

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 10:31 AM

Shambles, as I see it, the act itself makes it illegal to hold any public entertainment (other than live TV, Morris Dancing etc.) without a license which includes the entertainments provision. The small events clause which gives an exemption from further restrictions for small unamplified events, only applies where an entertainments provision is already in force.

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 10:47 AM

Well yes but there is the exemption for incidental live music - and music that is spontaneous still to be defined locally.

And even if such things are thought to be technically illegal - the point is - if a non-amplified session is taking place - without the entertainment permission - will the in LA in question - really try to prevent the right of customers to express themselves via music making? And if so - on what grounds will they try to do this?

There is also the need for LAs to issue Premise Licenses to enable outside music making on their own land. The fact that any music making - anywhere will be illegal without Premises Licence entertainment permission does at least give us all the means to test this aspect of the act - without first needing a licensee to be prepared to place their head on the block.

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 11:04 AM

The small events clause which gives an exemption from further restrictions for small unamplified events, only applies where an entertainments provision is already in force.

The premises first need an imposed safe capcity low enough (as part of their Premises Licence application) to establish that they qualify.
The difficulty that I see with this one is how do you ever establish which establishments are small enough to qualify for the limited conditions that can be placed on non-amplified music taking place in these small premises?
Unless (as a part of the Premises Licence application) if you impose a blanket requirement for all establishments (whether they apply to provide entertainment or not) to have an imposed safe capacity limit.

For the Licensing Act forbids LAs from introducing such blanket requirements as this - in their Licensing Policies and the licensing trade will also object to this.

Even if LAs restrict the requirement - for imposed safe capacities - to all premises that apply for the entertainment permission - it will still be a blanket requirement.

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 11:08 AM

Greenwich council forced a local musician's unamplified session to aquire an entertainments license (about £400) under the old law. What makes you think that they're going to be any more lenient under the new act ?

I still maintain that we've got to try and get licensees to tick the entertainments box on the new form in as many cases as possible. I still don't know of any landlord who's filled one in yet - or even seen one.

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 11:23 AM

Greenwich council forced a local musician's unamplified session to aquire an entertainments license (about £400) under the old law. What makes you think that they're going to be any more lenient under the new act ?

The Council placed the licensee in the position of having to fight their interpretation of the existing legislation. As we know - few licensees were prepared to challenge LAs in court to enable sessions.

The question of whether these council's legal positions over non-amplified sessions with unpaid customers would have be upheld in court - will probably never be answered. I suspect that they would have lost. But we are now in a different ball-game and if we are not prepared to test the legislation - over the less sensible interpretations of it from LAs - will be no better off that we are now.

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 05 Jul 05 - 11:08 AM

Greenwich council forced a local musician's unamplified session to aquire an entertainments license (about £400) under the old law. What makes you think that they're going to be any more lenient under the new act ?

I still maintain that we've got to try and get licensees to tick the entertainments box on the new form in as many cases as possible.

I think that is right but at the same time we should also prepare ourselves for a situation where no live music will be allowed in the majority of pubs which will not apply and work on the ways of ensuring that it can continue.

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Jul 05 - 02:27 AM

No news as yet on our local pubs Dave.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Jul 05 - 02:56 AM

Perhaps a summary of the situation for live music would be useful.

The bottom line for pubs is that under current legislation - only 5% of (licensed) premises have entertainment permission (i.e. PELs) but that some form of (limited) live music can still take place in all of them.

Under the new Act - probably more that 5% will apply for entertainment licensing permission (although no one knows what this figure will be) - but that - as from November 2005 - no live music can take place in any of the premises that do not apply.

And that any form of live music after November - performed anywhere (outside for example) - will be illegal without a Premises Licence and entertainment permission as a part of this.

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Jul 05 - 03:02 AM

http://www.thepublican.com/news/publicancomment.html
The Publican Comment

'Some licensees still don't know they need to apply for their new licences'

The weather. It's a classic British obsession.
And weather forecasters don't seem any nearer to getting it right today than they were on the famous occasion in October 1987 when they failed to predict the biggest storm to hit in decades. "Storm? What storm?" said the unfortunate Michael Fish on live TV, mere hours before a massive hurricane flattened the south.

Skipping neatly to 2005, "Crisis? What crisis?" seemed to be the message this week at a conference on licensing reform, where civil servant Andrew Cunningham sought to reassure delegates that reform was on track.

However, he neatly sidestepped fears that as many as four in 10 licensees will not have their licence in place by the deadline.
There are still licensees out there who don't know they need to apply for their new licences.

What about some of the more obscure sectors? The late-night burger vans, the kebab houses and takeaways? One pub industry source even told me recently that when he asked a leading light in the restaurant trade how the form-filling was going it became apparent that this leading light did not know restaurants were included in the legislation!

Judging by this, and the constant stream of letters we receive each week asking for guidance and advice on the new system, I would say this is not a time for resting on laurels.

The focus for all concerned has to be on keeping licensees as up-to-date as possible on the reforms, offering guidance to those filling out applications, and publicising the new laws as widely as possible to ensure no-one misses the application deadline.
Burying your head in the sand won't help when the police come knocking with a closure order.
Caroline Nodder, Editor
[e-mail]
30 June 2005

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge with no cookie
Date: 06 Jul 05 - 04:34 AM

As I understand it only about 20% of the premises thought to need a licence under the new Act have so far applied for one. Eventually of course 100% of pubs will have to do so or close, but it will be expensive (for a amall pub about £800 in stead of £30 just for the application fee) if they do it in time, and dearer if they leave it too late.

Best current guesstimates seem to be that fewer than 20% of premises applying for licences to sell booze for consumption on the premises will seek a licence that also includes permission to provide regulated entertainment. So about 80% of pubs will lose the ability to put on live "two-in-a-bar" music.

They will (if they apply in time, but not if they are late) retain the right to put on purely recorded music that they enjoyed under the "two-in-a-bar" rule - following the Schedule 8 transitional provisions, and of course all premises wil be free to replay broadcast music eg Radio 1 (or 4) or MTV. These rights will not be subject to any conditions at all under the LIcensing Act (unless they are grandfathered out of an existing PEL in which case they will be subject to any restrictions that are in the PEL). So recorded and broadcast music will lawfully be able to be played (subject to separate noise and health laws) at any volume whatsoever, without any needs for bouncers or other recognition of the "licensing objectives" (eg public order). But this does not apply if there is to be dancing, that will be regulated entertainment.

Morris dancing and "dancing of a like nature" (whatever that includes) will of course be exempt, as will unamplified music that is part of that.

Music that is "incidental" to something that is not regulated entertainment or the provision of entertainment facilities will also be exempt. "incidental" will ahve to be interpreted by the courts. We don't know yet what they will say, but they will have to interpret the word in accordance with the Human Rights Act rules on "freedom of expression".

Anything that needs a licence that used to escape a licence under the old law by taking place in a members club will need a licence under the new law.

The government keeps saying that "spontaneous" music will not be regulated. I have never been able to find any basis for this in the words of the act, and they have never said why they say it to be so. Subject to the HRA point above, they are probably wrong, and lying to save face.

The guidelines of course cannot alter the effect of the Act itself. Local authorities only have to "have regard" to the guidelines, not to obey them, so (if there were a genuine reason) local authorities could consider the guidelines and do something contrary to the indications of the guidelines without that thing THEREBY being illegal. I would say the Canterbury case rules only that the Canterbury policy was outside the powers granted to Canterbury by the Act - in particular by stating or implying that the council had a discretion in cases where the Act did not confer a discretion but an obligation to act in a certain way.

There may be grounds for arguing that Canterbury were not as wrong as the judge ruled them to be. Certainly if you compare the Canterbury approach with the DEFRA rules that make farm subsidies dependent on observance of other laws (particularly rights of way law) the two areas seem to be driving off in different directions and the integrated DEFRA approach seems much more sensible to me.

I certainly know of one pub that was planning not to "tick box" because of the bureacratic claptrap that came with doing any such thing - and it happens to host an occasional but sometimes tasty song/session. I have offered to help with the form, but so far to no avail.

Must do some work now!

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Jul 05 - 02:03 AM

Courts find Licensing Policy ILLEGAL

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Jul 05 - 02:04 AM

OOps!!!

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Jul 05 - 02:09 AM

Has anyone's Local Authority taken any steps to issue Premises Licenses to enable outside entertainment on land that it is responsible for?

I suspect that this will be rather low on their list of priorities - at the moment - which is all the more reason for reminding them.

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Jul 05 - 09:18 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

On 24 November 'two in a bar' becomes essentially 'none in a bar'.

There is less than a month to go for venues already promoting two in a bar gigs to benefit from the 'two for the price of one' offer for a live music and alcohol licence. By 06 August, venues wishing to continue such gigs after 24 November must make what is in practice, if not in name, a public entertainment licence application alongside their alcohol licence conversion. Applications for live music made later, using this 'variation' process, will incur another licence fee, more advertising costs, plus possible legal representation at a public hearing to consider objections, and licence conditions.

How does the government justify 'none in a bar'? The answer is: noise.

"The 'two in a bar' rule is being discontinued.... The Government believes this rule in practice restricts what entertainment will be
provided, creates disincentives to the presentation of more diverse musical acts and fails to protect local residents from noise nuisance. The new regime will allow musicians and other entertainers to flourish whilst providing protection against unnecessary disturbance."
DCMS website - Alcohol and Entertainment, then 4th para under 'Regulated Entertainment'.
http://www.culture.gov.uk/alcohol_and_entertainment/licensing_act_2003/regulated_entertainment.htm

Note the absence of references to public safety, crime, and disorder.

This government notoriously insists on 'evidence-based policy'. Where, then, is the evidence that two in a bar gigs are a significant source of disturbance?

Answer: there isn't any.

Indeed, all the evidence points to noisy punters outside bars as by far the biggest source of disturbance. In 2002, the Noise Abatement Society confirmed that this accounted for 80% of complaints about pubs.

The remaining 20% appears to down to recorded music or noisy machinery. But, irrespective of entertainment licensing, local authorities have the power to confiscate noisy equipment immediately, and they can issue anticipatory or reactive noise abatement notices. Camden council used a noise abatement notice to shut down the West End show Umoja in 2002. One resident's complaints were enough. Since 2001 the police have had the power to shut rowdy pubs immediately for up to 24 hours.

You might consider asking your MP what evidence the government has that two in a bar performances are a significant source of disturbance.

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge with no cookie
Date: 08 Jul 05 - 09:26 AM

More importantly, to my mind, in context, there is no restriction at all on the amount of amplification that can be used in connection with broadcast (and therefore unlicensable) material, or the replay of recorded music which is a grandfathered right under Schedule 8

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Jul 05 - 03:04 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

If you 'tick the box' for live music you move on to another section of
the application form. Here you must set out the days of the week and
times during the day when live performance is proposed.

You must also set out the measures you intend to implement to deal with the risks of crime and disorder, public nuisance, public safety, and protection of children from harm (not forgetting, of course, that under separate safety legislation you must have a written risk assessment for ALL activities on the premises - if you have five or more people working there).

You must then publicly advertise this application at your own
expense. It cost the village hall in last week's BBC report £250. It
is likely be more for inner-city premises.

You must also attach scale drawings of the premises. The completed
application, which will now run to over 26 pages, must then be
submitted to 8 different authorities including the police, fire
authority, planning, licensing and environmental health departments of
your local authority.

If any of the relevant authorities, including the public, raise an
objection, this may then go to a public hearing. Legal representation
is not necessary, but in many cases it is advisable.

Assuming the local authority gets round to processing the application
within two months, the licensing committee of the local authority will
then decide whether to impose conditions. If this application isn't
processed within two months, it is deemed refused.

Let's assume the licensee has been cautious, and had asked for a folk
session on Wednesday, 7-11pm, and a jazz band on Saturday, 8-11pm. And
let's assume the licensee is fortunate in that the local authorty in
the end does give permission without onerous conditions. What this
means is that promoting live music on any other day or time, other than originally specified, is a potential criminal offence.

To increase the number of days live music can be provided, or to change the days, the licensee must re-apply to 'vary' the licence, plus a licence fee, plus advertising costs, plus all the red tape palaver of the original application.

But what if the landlord is unlucky? What if there are a number of
local objectors, for example, and the local authority decides that they cannot risk granting the licence without a condition that a registered door supervisor must be on the premises whenever the live music is provided (a common condition of public entertainment licences at the moment). The landlord is faced with accepting the condition (costly) or appealing to the magistrates court (costly, time consuming and uncertain), or re-applying at some later date (costly, time consuming and uncertain).

So much easier, isn't it, just to convert an existing alcohol licence
and automatically carry forward the provision of big screen sport (and
music) broadcasts, and recorded music. Conversion applications are
automatically granted if not processed within two months.

Hamish Birchall

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Jul 05 - 01:39 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Once again licensing and music minister James Purnell has turned to White Stripes to justify ending the 'two in a bar rule'. In yesterday's Commons debate on licensing, he said:

'The current law is full of anomalies. The "two in a bar" rule, for example means that the White Stripes, - as the House knows, one of the most successful bands in the world but which has only two members - could turn up in a local pub and put on a concert for thousands of people.'

It is worth remembering that Purnell was one of a group of highly regarded Oxbridge educated advisers to Number 10 who 'just cannot hide the fact that they are very, very clever', according to a friend quoted in The Observer ('Labour's New', Kamal Ahmed, 2 June 2002 - http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/da/15759

You can read the (long) debate at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm050712/debtext/50712-23.htm#50712-23_head0

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 Jul 05 - 08:20 PM

This statement from this Commons debate - by Theresa May - 12 Jul 2005 - uses the 'chaos'.

With 25 days to go, for 190,000 premises - I am setting apart personal licences - an outstanding total of 133,000 applications are yet to be made.

As a result of the Government's deadline of 6 August, local authorities will have 18 working days in which they will be expected to receive and process applications, so they will have to deal with 7,400 a day.

That shows the chaos out there at the moment. Why do not the Government just admit that they got things wrong and work with us to come up with a solution?

Remember that these figures are just referring to those pub/clubs etc that have yet to apply for their Premises Licenses - alone. The number who have on top of this - also applied for entertainment permission - the only premises which will be able to have some form of live music after Novenber - will be a smaller figure still. And sadly - the resulting and worrying situation for live music - was not really addressed at all in this Commons debate......

Crisis? What crisis?

Subject: RE: Courts find licensing policy ILLEGAL.
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 14 Jul 05 - 03:14 AM

The 'set-up' question from the Commons debate raises some interesting points.

Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): I am not sure whether I am required to declare an interest, as my wife holds a highly distinguished position as a member of Tameside council's liquor licensing panel, and my agent chairs it. Is my hon. Friend aware that in Tameside, a local authority that also covers his constituency, the liquor licensing panel refused the first two applications under the new Act because the applicants both had convictions for selling alcohol to children? Is that not a prime example of the way in which the Act, which has given real powers back to local authorities and local communities, is working?

James Purnell: That is an extremely good point, and it shows the powers that local authorities will have under the Act. Previously, they found it difficult to exercise such powers, because they were removed from local accountability. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's wife and agent, who are leading the efforts of one of the best councils in the country—it is also my council—to introduce the law.


The fact that these two applicants had been convicted of an existing criminal offence under other legislation does not show any difficulty in existing powers - it rather does mean that if they ever re-offended - that existing legislation would be perfectly able to convict them again.

If these applicants had paid the price for their crimes and had learnt their lesson from it - this Council's policy under this legislation - would have prevented them from being able to demonstrate this.