Legal advice: Licensing Act debate

By David Clifton of thePublican.com's team of legal experts from London solicitors Joelson Wilson.​

I attended a debate on the Licensing Act 2003 on June 23, organised by the MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, Mark Field, where a number of unresolved matters were raised, writes Piers Warne.

However, the licensing minister Richard Caborn unfortunately used the little time available to reiterate the government's reasoning behind the need for the Act, rather than advancing the debate by answering a number of legitimate and pertinent questions put to him.

Mr Caborn refused to be drawn on the date that secondary legislation dealing with such matters as fees and procedures would be available. Instead he merely said that they would be published in plenty of time for the first appointed date.

This means that the issue of fees (in terms of making applications under the Act) and the first appointed date were all left open and other questions raised in recent Commons and Lords debates, such as special provisions for circuses, were ignored.

All that I could glean from the comments of Mr Caborn was the following:

• The first appointed date is currently under consideration by culture secretary Tessa Jowell and she is taking into account representations made to her from a "number" of sources. That much we all knew anyway
• Mr Caborn was unable to say when the first appointed date would be. However, it is looking increasingly likely to be after January 5, 2005.

The transition period will probably be for nine months - ending in "autumn 2005". However if the first appointed date is January 5, 2005, the second appointed day (when the Act will come into full force and effect) will have to be no earlier than October 5, 2005.

There will be an independent review of the fees charged once the transitional period is up and running. Malcolm Moss, shadow minister for home, constitutional and legal affairs, said that he had it on good authority from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the matter of fees for applications would be put out to consultation. Mr Caborn did not comment.

The debate has really taken us no further forward. It is clear, however, that the opposition consider the Act to contain anomalies and inconsistencies that need resolving. Come January, on current estimates, we may all find out how serious those anomalies and inconsistencies really are.