Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 365, in

clause 80, page 45, line 24, leave out subsection (2).

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 366, in

clause 81, page 46, line 10, leave out subsection (3).

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

This amendment is self-explanatory. It would remove the power to charge a fee for simple notifications such as change of name, alteration of rules of the club, or change of relevant registered address. In view of the limited number of such changes, which we hope will continue to be the case, it is not likely to lead to great loss to local authorities, particularly in view of the Minister's earlier promise that only major changes that affect the licensing activities are likely to lead to litigation. I hope that the Minister will find the amendments acceptable.

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

Clauses 80 and 81 set out that clubs must notify the relevant licensing authority of any change in the name or rules of the club, or in the address of the club. Such information is essential for enforcement, because licensing authorities and other relevant agencies must have accurate up-to-date information.

Clubs are groups that are voluntarily established to engage in qualifying club activities, among other things. It is because of the nature of these activities, which impact on public safety, crime, disorder and nuisance, that clubs will have to continue to apply for certificates, as they currently have to apply for registration. Furthermore, it is because of the implications of club activities for safety, crime, disorder and nuisance that the Government's policy is to require fees from clubs to cover the costs of administration, inspection and enforcement, so that such costs do not fall to the taxpayer.

The amendments would remove the Secretary of State's power to set a fee for notifications of changes in the name or address of a club or in its rules. As I made clear previously, fees will be set at a fair and appropriate level that will allow licensing authorities to recover the costs of administration, inspection and enforcement, following full discussions with local government. To remove the power to prescribe fees for notifications would mean that local authorities would have to find the money to cover their costs elsewhere, perhaps by raising the fees for other applications or notifications—in effect, by asking the licensed trade to subsidise the club movement. That would be unfair and unacceptable.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Before the Minister develops that part of his argument, which I may come to later, will he confirm that a fee set under either of the subsections would cover not merely the administration of the receipt and the filing of the notification but also a share of the authority's overheads, inspections and other costs? I fear that that element would place an undue burden on a club that has merely changed its name or registered address.

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

That is a very good question. The Committee has discussed at length how fees are to be set and what constitutes a local authority's overheads—that was the key word in the hon. Gentleman's questions. Clearly, a sports club or any other type of club should not have to carry the cost of street cleaning, for example, because we all pay council tax in order that such tasks can be properly paid for and carried out.

The fees will be set at a level that allows the authority to recover its costs, but not to make a profit—there is a big difference. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster gave good examples of some of the costs that his local authority charged, and he argued cogently that because of variations the fees are bound to be higher in some areas than in others. There is no question about that.

The costs of the procedures set out in clauses 80 and 81 will be small, as they are for administrative charges. We anticipate that they will be about £10—we are not talking about large sums of money. In addition, clubs will rarely ask for such changes to be made to their certificates. I am trying very hard to think of clubs in my own constituency that have regularly changed their address. Some sports clubs have moved their grounds occasionally, but the place where alcohol is consumed and entertainment takes place usually remains the same, for obvious reasons.

The costs associated with the new system will not be burdensome for clubs. In fact, significant savings will result from the reductions in bureaucracy that the Bill will introduce. For example, it will do away with the need for hearings for the majority of applications for certificates.

I have tried on many occasions to set out as clearly as I can why it is important for fee levels to be prescribed centrally and not at local level. We need to ensure that, while all licensing authorities recover their costs, there is consistency and transparency for those applying for certificates or licences. That is important. To allow fees to be set locally might undermine that. After that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will withdraw the amendment.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I may discuss the matter later, but for the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 81 and 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.