Question to the Authority

Report: 4
Date: 25 September 2003
By: Clerk

Summary

Members are requested, in accordance with the Authority’s Standing Orders, to hear questions from Mr Tom Mulcahey and from Ms Pauline Bowers. The Clerk will give the Authority’s responses at the meeting.

A. Recommendation

That the Authority hears the questions set out below and responds in accordance with Standing Orders.

B. Supporting information

1. A question has been received from Mr Tom Mulcahey, as follows:

“Liquor Licensing Law and Corporate Accountability"

Background

Following years of attending local meetings on anti-social behaviour and listening to the licensed trade trying to defend itself, stating drunken anti social behaviour has nothing to do with them, it’s a police problem / social problem, I consider it is about time we put the responsibility back where it belongs onto the licensees who sell alcohol to people until they are legless to maximise their profits. It is time all the liquor licensed industry was held accountable for their customers’ behaviour after they leave their premises as they do in other countries. Only then will the multinational breweries, clubs, pubs, restaurants, off sales etc take notice.

On Friday 12th April the front page headline in my local newspaper, the Romford Recorder, stated Gang of sixty attack police in drunken street brawl. The Metropolitan Police Service are striving to operate a business, however, I do not know of any other corporation which requires its employees to enter into unknown situations week after week and risk their lives in the same locations, such as public houses and clubs.

The crimes intoxicated people commit are classified as anti social behaviour “low level crime”, i.e. fighting, stabbings, physically as well as verbally abusing police officers, doctors, nurses, paramedics and ambulance drivers, mugging innocent victims, terrorising the old and young, smashing shop windows, wilful destruction of bus shelters, vandalising cars as well as destroying private and public property. This may be classified as “low level crime” by some fool but it has a serious impact on the quality of life of law abiding people notwithstanding the cost which has to be paid in higher taxes and insurance premiums by the general public who are normally the victims.

Conclusion

The way you achieve a drastic reduction in drink related anti social behaviour is not exactly rocket science – you simply target and revoke the licenses of known troublesome establishments, target six licensed premises in the borough and repeat the same across the 32 London boroughs, revoking a total of 192 licenses. This is not many considering we have 22,154, however I am sure that it would cause genuine fear to the licensees when they realise they are going to be held accountable for their customers’ behaviour as well as the loss of their liquor licence permanently if they are incapable of managing a well-behave, trouble-free establishment. It would be an excellent incentive for concentrating the mind of the licensee.

On 30th June 2001, according to Home Office statistics, within Greater London 22,154 establishments held liquor licenses, i.e. clubs, pubs, hotels. Within Havering there were 382.

Question

Why is it that the Metropolitan Police Service continually allow their police officers to enter into unknown, dangerous situations on a daily basis, attending altercations on or about licensed premises therefore endangering their officers’ lives? Why is the MPS not targeting and revoking liquor licenses permanently from known troublesome licensed establishments?”

2. A question has been received from Ms Pauline Bowers as follows:

“What does the MPA consider the relationship should be between the MPS and other members of a Community Police Consultative Group?”

3. Standing Order 2.7 sets out the process for receiving questions at Authority meetings:

“2.7.1 Members of the public may ask questions of the Authority which are relevant to its business, functions or responsibilities. The Clerk must receive the question in writing not less than ten working days before a meeting of the Authority.

2.7.2 A person may not ask more than three questions in a rolling 12 month period.

2.7.3 The Clerk of the Authority will, in discussion with the Chair of the Authority, have the discretion to refuse a question. In this event, the Clerk shall respond in writing to the questioner outlining the reason(s) for this decision. This letter will be copied to all members, before the Authority meeting, and the Clerk’s decision reported to the meeting as part of the regular report on action taken under delegated authority. Without fettering that discretion, reasons why a question may not be accepted include the following:

1. The reasons set out in 2.6.2 above
2. The question cannot be answered satisfactorily without the disclosure of exempt information (as defined in the Access to Information legislation)
3. In the Clerk's opinion, the question has already been answered by another means and contains no issues of wider public interest that require a public answer
4. The question actually contains a number of different questions, in which case the Clerk will ask for an amended question to be submitted
5. The question is similar to, or on a similar theme to, a question asked by someone else in the preceding three months.

2.7.4 Any question(s) shall be included on the agenda for the meeting, in the order of receipt, as the next item of business after the approval of the minutes of the last meeting, and must be addressed to the Chair. The Chair will then invite the Clerk to respond, orally or in writing, on behalf of the Authority. Following the Clerk’s response, the person asking the question may speak further for no more than three minutes. Members may also comment on or discuss the issues raised by the question and answer.

2.7.5 The person asking the question can attend the meeting to put the question. If they are not present, the answer as reported to the Authority shall be sent to them following the meeting. If the person asking the question needs some clarification in relation to the answer, this will be given by the Clerk or appropriate officer, in person or in writing, within ten working days of clarification being sought.

2.7.6 The Chair may use discretion to limit the number of questions asked by members of the public in order to avoid the business of the Authority being disrupted. In any event, no more than 30 minutes will be allowed for public questions and answers. Any questions that remain unanswered within the timescale shall receive written responses only.”

C. Equality and diversity implications

None related to the process of receiving questions from the public or considering motions.

D. Financial implications

None.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Simon Vile, MPA.

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback