Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I was surprised to find that clause 65 forms part of this Bill because my perception of industrial and provident societies and friendly societies was that they tend to be savings entities or other societies that are set up for the mutual financial benefit of their members. I think that I am right in saying that certain health insurers are set up as friendly societies and that friendly societies have particular tax benefits that arise based on the savings vehicles that they operate, which offer a good product for people on low incomes. Having understood that that was the background of those societies, it came as a surprise to me to see provisions in the Bill to cover the operation by them of clubs in the sense that we discussed with regard to earlier sections of the Bill.

I wish to understand why these organisations are allowed to operate such clubs. Is there not a risk that by operating clubs they might start to become more commercial ventures than they are at present? BUPA is a provident society: would we find it acceptable if it operated a club on the premises of one of its hospitals or nursing homes? Is that really what we are allowing them to do under this part of the Bill? I would be grateful if the Minister would give some clarification about the extent to which this clause is likely to be used by existing clubs or societies.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

I missed that adjective.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I am unsure which adjective the Minister missed. I wish him to say how many existing clubs would use these provisions because it seems strange that they are included in the Bill, and to comment on how different the controls would need to be over those activities for them to be satisfactory in the context of a licensing authority looking at the operation of such entities.

Are we opening the floodgates? Many offices have been set up for, for example, the Ancient Order of Foresters Friendly Society, which used to be an industrial provident society, or for the Oddfellows or the Buffaloes—for a whole host of those little societies with offices up and down the country in small towns. Were they properly to constitute themselves, each could now open up a club. Their members might welcome that—I do not know. That might attract more members. The societies might see it as a valuable way of extending the services that they offer to their communities if they could open up qualifying clubs and sell low-cost financial services products at the same time. That might cause a change in the way in which such services are sold that would excite the Chancellor and the Financial Services Authority.

It is an odd situation if financial institutions there to help the low-paid can also operate clubs that will relieve them of their savings premiums, which will be spent on beer instead. Perhaps the Minister can take the opportunity to clarify why this measure has been included and whether it will be used in practice.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

As I understand it, clause 65 is lifted, perhaps verbatim, from the Licensing Act 1964. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether it is the same, word for word. I suspect that clause 66 is of much the same ilk. Most clubs that come under this part of the Bill are non-profit-making clubs, which is why they enjoy such benefits, but why do some—those identified in clause 65—apparently not have to fulfil the requirements placed on other non-profit-making clubs? Is there something special about them? They are, in some cases, charitable institutions and registered under various other Acts of Parliament. Does that confer upon them the ability to run a club that involves the sale of alcohol and provision of entertainment better or more wisely than any other group of people who come together to form a non-profit-making club? It seems that, because the measure was in earlier legislation and there was no input from anyone to say that it was working badly or inappropriately or was conferring special privileges, the Government just decided to lob it in here. That is not a real justification for keeping it.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

May I help the hon. Gentleman and save him a little time? Are he and his hon. Friends saying that we should prevent industrial and provident societies and friendly societies from setting themselves up as clubs that can sell alcohol if they so choose, as they do now?

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

No, I am not saying that at all. If I am going down the wrong road, the Minister will no doubt bring me back into line, but my interpretation is that if such societies choose to set up clubs, they will not necessarily have to abide by all the regulations and requirements placed on other non-profit-making clubs. That enables them to duck some of the requirements and responsibilities set down in the legislation for other non-profit-making clubs. If I am wrong in that interpretation, I should be more than grateful if the Minister put me right.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

My hon. Friends have put their finger on an important point. Why is that particular category of club specified in the Bill at all? The Minister, intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, suggested that if we removed the clause we would be preventing those societies from running clubs. I see no such possibility. The Bill permits both incorporated and unincorporated associations, formed for whatever purpose, to apply for club certificates. The removal of clause 65 would not prevent the people who form those societies and who are members of them from forming a club on club premises in exactly the same way as, for example, Shanklin Conservative club.

My hon. Friend asked whether there are exemptions accruing to organisations covered by clause 65 from the generality of the conditions set out in clauses 62, 63 and 64. If there are no such exemptions, I see no need for that particular clause.

I should like to ask the Minister why, if there is no difference in the conditions, he has not felt it necessary to refer in the Bill to, for example, student unions. Perhaps student unions are not voluntary

organisations but they are organisations in which people can come together. In many cases they provide cheap beer and snooker, and sometimes even barmaids; they provide exactly the same opportunities as the Con club to which the Minister referred. Why is it that industrial and provident societies are referred to in the Bill and student unions are not?

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

I will be brief because we have had a comprehensive debate. [Hon. Members: ''No.''] We certainly have, considering what we have been debating. The clause provides for registered industrial and provident societies and registered and incorporated friendly societies to be treated for the purpose of the Bill as satisfying some of the conditions of being a qualifying club, provided that certain requirements relating to their constitution and management are met. The clause makes it possible for such organisations to apply for a club premises certificate. There are 22,000 registered members clubs under the Licensing Act 1964. Friendly societies and others have been included at the behest of the Committee of Registered Clubs Association, of which the Conservative club movement is a leading member.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister wants to move us on very quickly without answering some of the questions, and I am puzzled as to why. Subsection (5) makes it clear that a club that comes out of an incorporated friendly society automatically fulfils condition 3 in clause 62(4), condition 5 in clause 62(6) and the additional conditions in clause 64. No other club would appear to have those advantages, and it is down to the Minister to explain why friendly societies and those registered in various ways have that particular dispensation. I do not understand why and I should like the Minister to explain.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

While the Minister consults the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton), perhaps he will enlighten the Committee on how many of those 22,000 licensed clubs registered under the 1964 Act are industrial and provident societies and friendly societies. Would he be happy if some of the large friendly societies, which are large commercial operations, were to open a chain of clubs across the country to meet their members' needs? Further to that, will he define who the secretary of one of those organisations would be? The secretary crops up as an important person in, for example, supplying licensing authorities with notices.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.