Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 363, in

clause 76, page 44, line 19, leave out 'those premises' and insert

'such parts of the premises as are used for the qualifying club activities'.

This is an ''as wide as the local authority needs to bother'' amendment, as is amendment No. 368 and the remainder of that group. It revolves around what is meant by the word ''premises''. Does it relate to the premises that is the subject of the licence or the club premises certificate, or to the premises more widely

drawn, namely the premises owned by the club, which might include parts that are not the subject of a premises certificate. I am not a freemason, but I wonder whether, for example, some parts of the masonic hall would be covered. I wonder whether a steward's flat, or a Conservative association office, situated in a club would be covered.

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

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill is full of references to the word ''premises''. It is where licensable activities take place. A steward's flat or maisonette is not usually where licensable activities take place.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

In that case, I have decided not to press the amendment.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Amendment, by leave, not moved.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 368, in

clause 76, page 44, line 22, at end add—

'(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not provide for the certificate to contain any reference to the rules of the club other than to those which substantially affect the conduct of qualifying club activities.'.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 369, in

clause 80, page 45, line 23, after 'rules', insert

'(where the alteration is to rules which substantially affect the conduct of qualifying club activities)'.

Amendment No. 367, in

clause 80, page 45, line 29, leave out

', or alteration of the rules,'.

Amendment No. 370, in

clause 80, page 45, line 36, after 'or', insert '(subject to subsection (1))'.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Amendment No. 368 is along the same lines: why does the local authority need to know and have on record rules that do not significantly impact on the conduct of the qualifying club activities? It may surprise hon. Members to learn that once upon a time I was a member of the Oxford Union. Its rules were changed at least every term and often many times a term.

Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)

Usually, the rules for elections.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Yes, usually the rules relating to elections, not to licensable activities.

Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)

Rule 33.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

My hon. Friend mentions rule 33. I believe that at one stage special efforts were made to ensure that rule 33 remained the same, despite the rearrangement of many of the rules before and after it.

The purpose of the amendment is to ask whether it should be possible for a club secretary to be prosecuted and fined for failure to supply the local authority with the section of the rules on the conduct of the darts league, or any other section of the rules that has nothing to do with the licensable activity. I am not suggesting that there should be no requirements for the licensing authority to have access to those parts of the rules that refer to the conduct of the licensable activities, but I question whether it is necessary to go

to the extreme of making it a crime not to supply other and less relevant parts of the rules.

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

Clause 76 provides that a club premises certificate and the summary of such a certificate must be in a prescribed form, namely a form prescribed in regulation by the Secretary of State. Those regulations must, in particular, provide for the certificate to specify the name of the club, its relevant registered address and the address of the premises to which the certificate relates, to include a plan of the premises, specify the qualifying club activities for which the premises may be used, and specify the conditions subject to which the certificate has effect. The Committee will note that the words do not refer to club rules. However, I accept that the wording is broad enough to permit some reference to the club rules in the regulations.

Clause 80 provides the procedures for notification of a change in the name of the club or alteration of the club's rules. It further provides that on receiving such a notification, the licensing authority must amend the certificate accordingly.

Under amendment No. 368, the regulations could not provide for the certificate to refer to the club rules other than those that substantially affect the conduct of qualifying club activities. Amendments Nos. 369, 367 and 370 would provide that only an alteration of the club rules that substantially affects the conduct of qualifying club activities needs to be notified to the licensing authority. The offence provision relating to failure to notify would also be amended. In addition, the licensing authority is not required to amend the certificate to reflect a change in the club rules at all.

The focus on qualifying club activities is wrong. Qualifying club activities are set out in clause 1. They include, for example, the supply of alcohol to club members and guests. The focus of the club premises certificate will also be on the steps taken to promote the licensing objectives. They would be the conditions relating to crime and disorder, public safety, nuisance and the protection of children from harm. In many cases, the conditions may have been limited because the club rules laid down a code of discipline that persuaded the police that no additional conditions were necessary.

Alternatively, the club rules may have barred children and no conditions relating to children may have been necessary. Indeed, the maintenance of a club rule may well have emerged as a condition that is attached to the certificate for the promotion of one of the licensing objectives. Therefore, the way in which the club rules impact on the licensing objective is crucial and important.

Similarly, by concentrating on qualifying club activities, the amendments would also ignore changes that relate to the general conditions in clauses 62 and 64. The club must satisfy those conditions so that it can undertake qualifying club activities and certain of those qualifications relate directly to the club rules. For example, the two-day rule that we discussed at length earlier in Committee must be a club rule. It is an important rule, because it defines what is or is not a club. Therefore, a change in the rules could result in a

club ceasing to be a qualifying club under clause 88. I am sure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight recognises the significance of that because it would alter entirely the status of the club as a place in which people are allowed to consume alcohol. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we should not restrict the requirement to matters relating only to alterations that affect significantly the conduct of qualifying club activities. It would be too rigid an approach. I hope that, given my reassurances, he will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

The Minister has not really explained why it is necessary for the authority to have access to a host of rules that may have nothing to do with—to use a broader phrase—the club's approach to licensable activities. I accept that ''substantially affect'' may be too narrow for the Minister's taste but, if that is why he is objecting to the amendment—not because he believes that it is necessary for the licensing authority to have access to the whole club rule book—I understand his point.

I do not find the hon. Gentleman's argument convincing nor am I persuaded that someone who fails to supply copies of amendments on the conduct of elections or the darts league should be guilty of an offence that on summary conviction is liable to a fine. That is the base from which I started with the amendments. It is unfortunate that I had to start at the end of the group, but I understand the Minister to be saying that it is not merely that my definition is too narrow, but that the licensing authority must have access to the whole range of the rules.

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

Essentially, I am saying that the hon. Gentleman does not understand how clubs operate. The club may offer rules for the ladies' darts match: the local authority will not want to know about that, but it may want to know about other alterations that have taken place that could significantly affect, for example, the very legitimacy of that establishment or group of people being regarded as a club. Those are the issues that matter and I hope that he will accept, as he did with who is and is not a guest, that a club will have the leeway and freedom to alter rules about such issues and to interpret them in certain ways, but that the licensing authority must have access to important alterations that could affect or determine where that club stands in terms of licensing law.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for that contribution. He has put on the record that what matters are important alterations that alter the way in which the club's activities take place, rather than the fact that the secretary forgot to put in place an amendment about the conduct of the darts league. I am sure that, in interpreting that, the courts will have regard to the Minister's words. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I seek clarification. Subsection (1) states:

''A club premises certificate and the summary of such a certificate must be in the prescribed form.''

However, subsection (2) states,

''Regulations under subsection (1) must . . . provide for the certificate'',

but does not say anything about providing for the summary. Can the Minister give the Committee a steer as to what form the summary might take and whether it will replicate all the information on the certificate? If it does replicate all that information, why bother? If it does not, what information does the Minister think is so critical that it must go on the summary?

My interpretation is that the summary will be a small document that could be used for all sorts of other purposes. If it is a very small document, it could be used by people who need to provide some evidence that they belong to a recognised club when they are visiting another club. We talked about that in clause 67: subsection (2)(b) states that the

''other club is a recognised club''.

If the summary is small, it could be included with the membership certificate of a member of a recognised club and would therefore be easily presentable on a visit to another club, so there would be no difficulties for the host club to establish the bona fides of that guest or associate member.

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

I fully sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, but he must have missed the beginning of my answer to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight.

The summary will be in the form prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State. I will go through those regulations for the hon. Gentleman. They

''must, in particular, provide for the certificate to—

(a) specify the name of the club and . . . its relevant registered address''.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

That is all written down in the Bill. Does the Minister not wish to save time?

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

It is all written down: the hon. Gentleman can see it and I am glad that he can.

The summary would set out the information relating to conditions—for example, that alcohol could be supplied only at the premises between certain hours—and it would have to be displayed at the premises. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman sees the importance of that, not only in terms of people quickly referring to it if they decide to do so—regardless of whether they are club members, their guests, the responsible bodies or the forces of law and order, under certain circumstances—so that they can check whether alcohol is being sold during the hours that have been agreed as part of that certificate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.