Clause 71 - Application for club premises certificate
Licensing Bill [Lords]
4:30 pm
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.