Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 305, in

clause 71, page 41, line 18, leave out 'and habitually' and insert 'or'.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 306, in

clause 71, page 41, line 25, leave out 'a club' and insert 'an'.

Amendment No. 307, in

clause 71, page 41, line 25, at end insert 'and'.

Amendment No. 308, in

clause 71, page 41, line 27, leave out from 'form' to end of line 28.

Amendment No. 309, in

clause 71, page 41, line 29, leave out 'A ''club' and insert 'An '' '.

Amendment No. 310, in

clause 71, page 41, line 36, at end insert

'or hired out for functions to nonmembers of the club'.

Amendment No. 311, in

clause 72, page 42, line 18, leave out 'club'.

Amendment No. 312, in

clause 72, page 42, line 30, leave out 'qualifying club' and insert 'licensable'.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

These are probing amendments, as we were wondering why the word ''habitually'' appears in the Bill. Amendment No. 305 would remove the word

and replace it with ''or'' so that subsection (1) would read:

''A club may apply for a club premises certificate in respect of any premises which are occupied by,''

or

''used for the purposes of, the club.''

What is the definition of the word ''habitually''? Does it mean frequently or infrequently? The rate of usage is not defined. If the club has a premises and if it is active, all that needs to be said is that the premises is occupied and/or is used by the club for its activities.

Amendments Nos. 306 to 309 and 311 are an attempt to bring clause 71 closer to the wording of clause 18, which relates to the application for a premises licence for pubs and other institutions besides qualifying clubs. Clause 18(4) refers to the requirement to provide an ''operating schedule''. That requirement is replicated in clause 71(4), but there it is called a ''club operating schedule''. One queries whether the word ''club'' needs to be included. We are talking about clubs and applying for a club premises certificate, so it is obvious that a certificate will be given only if the club is a qualifying club and meets all the requirements that we discussed under earlier clauses, particularly 61, 62 and 63. We want to remove the words ''a club'' from subsection (4)(a), so that it refers to ''an operating schedule'', which would be adequate for the requirements of a premises certificate. Amendment No. 309 would remove the same words from subsection (5). Amendment No. 308 would delete subsection (4)(c), which deals with

''a copy of the rules of the club.''

We cannot see why a copy of the rules should be relevant at that stage. The club will already have met its requirements in good faith. Presumably it will have been accepted as a qualifying club and such a provision simply means more bureaucracy.

Amendment No. 310 would insert into the Bill the fact that club premises are often hired out for third-party events—occasions held by non-club members. Certain Conservative clubs in my constituency are hired out for weddings and most successful venues they prove to be. The amendment would insert at the end of subsection (5)(c)

''or hired out for functions to non-members of the club'',

which would be a requirement of the operating schedule that needs to be looked at before the premises certificate is given to the club. If a club were looking to hire out its premises for many unacceptable reasons, they ought to be known to the licensing authority and/or the police and dealt with accordingly. I cannot think of many instances when that might occur, but it seems to be sensible in light of the other requirements that such matters are stipulated under the Bill.

Amendment No. 311 would remove the word ''club'' from clause 72, while amendment No. 312 would remove from the clause ''qualifying club'' and insert ''licensable''. That would accord with the wording under clause 18 that we debated earlier.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I shall mention a couple of matters given that I doubt whether we shall have a clause stand

part debate. I refer to ''plan'' under subsection (4)(b). It has been drawn to my attention by a licensing lawyer that some licensed premises may not have a plan that has been lodged with the magistrates. When the Bill comes into effect under the transitional arrangements, at what point will such premises be required to supply a plan to the new licensing authority? Will it be at the start of the transitional arrangements, at the end, or at the time of a subsequent review? That is an important issue for clubs and for other licensed premises that may be in that position.

I am sure that the Minister will put me right on my other point. I hope that nothing in subsection (1) will preclude a club from qualifying for a licence for new premises that are not habitually used or occupied for the purposes of a club.

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

Clause 71 sets out the arrangements for applying for a club premises certificate. Subsection (1) states that a qualifying club

''may apply for a club premises certificate in respect of any premises which are occupied by, and habitually used for the purposes of, the club.''

Although we have taken steps to ensure that the special position of clubs is preserved under the new system, we are not proposing some sort of free-for-all for qualifying clubs. Local residents are entitled to as much protection from the activities of qualifying clubs as they are from licensed premises.

The licensing objectives are no less important for premises used by qualifying clubs than for other types of premises. That is why subsection (1) restricts the application for a club premises certificate to those premises that are habitually used by the club. Without that condition, the lighter-touch regime set out in the Bill for qualifying clubs in possession of a club premises certificate might be extended to a wide range of premises indeed, potentially undermining some of the checks, balances and protections provided.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Perhaps the Minister will give some examples of what he meant by allowing certain other clubs or institutions to become qualifying clubs. I do not follow that.

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

We were talking about ''habitually used''. I can think of a number of rugby clubs in my constituency, for example, in which drinking might certainly go on in the clubhouse. The fields, however, which sometimes do not adjoin the clubhouse, are also habitually used by rugby clubs but are not often used for drinking; they might occasionally be used that way for a fête or some other fundraising event. Generally, ''habitually'' has a specific meaning that I shall deal with under amendment No. 305. That amendment would make it explicit in the Bill that a club may apply for a club premises certificate to cover any premises that may be used for carrying out qualifying club activities.

I hope that it has become clear during our debate on other amendments that the system that the Bill provides for qualifying clubs is designed to deliver a lighter-touch regime than that which applies to licensed premises in general. Of course, that does not mean that we can ignore the licensing objectives or the

legitimate concerns of local residents and the need for expert scrutiny by responsible authorities.

The Bill allows a qualifying club to apply for a certificate for the premises that it occupies and habitually uses. Departure from that ring-fencing test, as proposed under the amendment—I hope that this answers the hon. Gentleman—would not only undermine the promotion of the licensing objectives, particularly when the supply of alcohol is proposed, but would weaken protection for local residents and present the industry at large with a measure of unfair competition. We dealt with that issue earlier. Indeed, the amendment undermines some of the arguments deployed to justify the special position of the club movement.

Clause 71(4) states that

''a club operating schedule . . . a plan of the premises to which the application relates . . . and a copy of the rules of the club''

must accompany the application. The hon. Member for Fareham asked when a plan had to be submitted. When applying for the conversion of an existing licence during the transitional period, a plan of the premises must be deposited with the licensing authority. I hope that that clarifies the matter for the hon. Gentleman.

Amendments Nos. 306 to 309 and 311 would remove the requirement for the rules to accompany the application and would also remove the concept of the club operating schedule and replace it simply with an operating schedule. Amendment No. 312 would, by extension, remove the concept of a qualifying club activity and replace it with a reference to the licensing activity used in relation to licensed premises under part 3 of the Bill. The amendments would undermine the distinction between qualifying clubs and licensed premises. As I hope I have made clear during the debate, the special status of the club movement is worth preserving and that is reflected by the separate, although similar in several respects, systems in parts 3 and 4. Some may argue that that is a cosmetic distinction. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire hinted at that, but it is not the case.

There is a fundamental difference between the sale of alcohol under a premises licence and the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of qualifying clubs to members or guests under the authority of a club premises certificate. That difference arises from the fact that members of the qualifying club are already treated as owning the stock and the qualifying club supplies as opposed to sells alcohol to them, so the nature of qualifying club activities under the Bill is different from the set of licensable activities.

It makes sense therefore, if only for the sake of clarity, to set out the qualifying club activities in a special club operating schedule, especially when we consider the fact that nothing will prevent a club from applying for a premises licence to authorise activities that are not covered, or cannot be covered, by the club premises certificate—for example, the sale of alcohol to members of the public. Indeed, our expectation is that several qualifying clubs will have both a club premises certificate and a premises licence in respect of

premises. Furthermore, it makes sense that the rules of the club accompany an application so that the licensing authority can be sure that the club is a qualifying club. I hope that my explanation has helped the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.

Subsection (5) sets out the contents of the club operating schedule. It must include a statement of the relevant qualifying club activities, the times during which the relevant qualifying club activities are to take place, any other times during which it is proposed that the premises are to be open to members and their guests, the steps that it is proposed to take to promote the licensing objectives and such other matters as may be prescribed, and given the Government's amendment that has been agreed by the Committee when the supply of alcohol is involved, a statement about whether the club proposes to supply alcohol for consumption on the premises or both on and off the premises.

I understand that amendment No. 310 would require the club operating schedule to include details of any times during which the premises were to be hired out for functions to non-members of the club. Following on from the points that I have made, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the amendment would be unnecessary. Any licensable activities to be carried out during a function for which the premises were to be hired out to non-members of the club would not be covered by the authorisation provided by the club premises certificate.

A separate authorisation would need to be obtained by virtue of a premises licence under which all the provisions of the Bill would operate normally, including the provision of an operating schedule, an advertisement to local residents and notification to the responsible authorities—the police, fire and environmental health authorities. They would all apply. There would be no need for separate notification via the inclusion of the information proposed under the amendment and, on that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will regard that as reassuring and withdraw the amendment.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Again, the more that I hear the Minister's reply to the debate, the more intrigued I am becoming. His performance makes me cogitate on other opportunities that may arise for the implementation of the Bill. One of our amendments, I forget which, would insert a further provision between subsection (5)(c) and (d). I have drawn my inspiration from the Freshwater Conservative club in my constituency and I am concerned about what is and what is not a licensable activity. The key distinction between a club and other premises is the requirement that people be members before alcohol can be sold to them. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I go down the wrong track, and the quicker he corrects me, the quicker I will be able to shut up.

If a club decides to provide singing and dancing for its members, that is a licensable activity, but that is not at the root of the distinction between its club certificate and the licence that it might otherwise obtain. The

club needs to say if it is going to supply singing and dancing for its members when it applies for the premises certificate. If it is going to hire out the premises to another organisation to provide a discotheque, for example, the Minister has just explained that that has to be covered elsewhere in the legislation. But what would happen if it decides to hold a discotheque that is open to its members and members of the public?

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

I put it to the hon. Gentleman that it is impossible to be intrigued by my last contribution. I was very impressed with it myself, but I was not intrigued by it. I can only assume that he was hypnotised by it because I am sure that he does know the difference between a club and other licensed premises. If the circumstances that he has just described took place, the club would need a premises licence. That is the difference, and many clubs have a premises licence as well as taking part in the arrangements specific to clubs.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

So even if no alcohol is sold to the customers of the disco who are not members of the club, a premises licence is required?

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

Yes.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I thank the Minister.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful for the Minister's clarification on amendment No. 310, which would have included the times for the hiring out of premises' functions to non-club members. I am clear in my own mind that that would need a separate premises licence. If entertainment were involved, that would presumably have to come under schedule 1 requirements as well. Am I right in thinking that a public entertainment licence would currently cover all those aspects, but in future there would need to be a premises and an entertainment licence?

Dr. Howells indicated assent.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister is nodding, so perhaps my interpretation is correct. In that situation is it more likely that the club will incur greater costs for those new requirements? It would be helpful to have a steer on that.

I accept the Minister's definition of ''habitually'' and the need for premises to be in regular use by a club, as opposed to something quite different, and I am prepared to withdraw amendment No. 305. As far as amendment No. 308 is concerned, I cannot understand why the licensing authority would want a copy of the rules of the club because by that stage the club will have jumped through so many hoops, particularly in relation to clauses 62 and 63. Under clause 63, it has to be established that the club is conducted in good faith, and the club has to make all sorts of assurances to the authority. I would have thought that those clauses covered all the requirements of the qualifying status for a club to enjoy those advantages and benefits. I cannot see why a copy of the club's rules must be provided as well. Who would read them and what bearing would that have on the key components required for the licence, to which I alluded, in clauses 62 and 63?

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

That is a fair question, but the hon. Gentleman referred to earlier clauses under which a local authority, as the licensing authority, would examine a club's rules to ensure that it is a properly qualifying club. In those circumstances, it would not be an additional burden to ensure that the authority's copy is referred to or, indeed, the copy held by the club so that it can, as a proper organisation, check them if necessary at regular intervals. I do not believe that that is a great burden. The chances are that the copy of the club rules that would be referred to would be those already in the possession of the licensing authority.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I hear what the Minister says, but he said earlier that the Government are not too fussed about who the secretary is and that he or she should merely be a nominated person and need not be an officer or even elected by the club members. We think that that is unsatisfactory, but the Minister is now insisting that

the club provides a copy of its rules. There seems to be no consistency in ensuring that everything that the licensing authority needs to makes its decision is tied down. I would have greater faith in what the Minister is saying in relation to the need for the club rules to be handed in if he had been stronger on the need for the secretary to be elected, to be an officer of the club and to be on the committee. The secretary holds great power and under the Bill has considerable responsibilities. However, in the light of the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 6 May at half-past Four o'clock.