Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 333, in

clause 85, page 48, line 25, at end insert

'with the written support of one twentieth of the membership of that club'.

I am sure that we are all familiar with several clubs; I will not mention any specifically and say whether they are Conservative, rugby, hockey, cricket or other types. In my experience, few clubs run completely smoothly all the time. The lead-up to annual general meetings is often a fraught time, at which jockeying for the position of president or chairman, or for membership of the committee, takes place. The amendment would put some flesh on the bones of the clause, subsection (1)(c) of which refers to instances when, with a club holding a club premises certificate,

''a member of the club, may apply to the relevant licensing authority for a review of the certificate.''

That seems to be saying that one member of a club can, for whatever vexatious or other reason, start to undermine the club by applying for a review. More than one member might be involved; a small group of people might be disillusioned, marginalised or have a gripe—justifiable in some cases—against those running the club. People often think that they can do a much better job that those who were elected to the committee. There is often backbiting and factionalism within clubs. All I am attempting to do with the amendment is to say that we should not allow a single member of a club or a small group of members who may have reasons of their own to challenge the running of the club to apply for a review, but instead allow only a reasonable number of members who see matters going wrong to make an application.

I accept that I have chosen an arbitrary number of members, but I regard

''one twentieth of the membership of that club''

as being a reasonable number or a reasonable percentage of people who decide that the club is not being run properly or legally. There is every justification for that group of people to come together and apply for a review.

I am happy to accept that one twentieth of the membership of the club is an arbitrary figure and am

willing to accept a figure that the Minister considers more specific and accurate. I am sure that he will suggest a figure when he responds to the debate. However, I feel strongly that no single member should set the ball rolling on such a review procedure. It would be difficult for a licensing authority to get to the bottom of a report by a single individual and it could lead to all sorts of problems for the club from what might often be a misleading and vexatious challenge.

We are all aware of situations in which accusations are made against people in everyday life. I have had cases in my surgeries of people being accused of something and the police being called in. If A says one thing and B says something to the contrary, the police must take time to investigate the matter. In the meantime, the people who have been maligned have a difficult time because of the old adage that there is no smoke without fire and it may be difficult for them to shake off the slur against them. Similarly, when an investigation takes place under the Bill, word will get out and that will be to the detriment of the club. No single individual should have that power.

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

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's comments. There is a great danger that the exercise will be costly and time consuming and it should be carried out only when there is support from more than one individual. I suspect that the Minister will ask what should happen in a club of 20 members when one twentieth of the membership would be a single member—

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

As my hon. Friend will recollect, a qualifying club must have 25 members.

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

On that basis, it would be one and a quarter. If a club had only 40 members, it is arguable that only one, or perhaps two, would be required, depending on which way the fraction fell. There is little doubt that given the time-consuming exercise and difficulties that would arise if there was a constant push for a review of a club's arrangements, it makes sense to have a minimum threshold. I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire has suggested an arbitrary threshold, but, none the less, it is sensible to suggest that there should be some level of support for the procedure rather than just a single member being able to hold a club to ransom.

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

The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire was right to point out that there are frequently feuds between clubs and internal wars. I know from the two-year attempt to reorganise Welsh rugby that there has been open warfare and guerrilla activity within clubs and that that can become very serious.

I understand that the limit in the amendment is probing and I do not intend to comment on the merits of one twentieth, one tenth or whatever. However, I want to make it clear that the Government have no intention of limiting the rights of club members to call for a review in the way that amendment No. 333 suggests and we cannot, therefore, accept it.

Subject to the protections that we have provided at subsection (4) that a ground may be excluded if it is frivolous, vexatious or a repetition, club members

should be free to use the review process to raise relevant concerns. Such concerns are rendered no more or less important by the fact that one member or 10, 20 or 100 members wish to raise them, provided that they are relevant to one or more of the licensing objectives and that they are not frivolous, vexatious or a repetition. The Bill does not say that a local resident must have the support of a certain number of his or her neighbours to be able to call for a review. Indeed, the Government would be fiercely criticised if we had argued for that. There is no reason why different considerations should apply to club members.

If we accepted this amendment, we would risk exposing the fair, open and transparent review system that is contained in the Bill to undue political influence. Requiring the applicant to gather a certain amount of support is akin to the nomination procedure for an election, which the Government consider is entirely inappropriate in this case.

Having heard that argument, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that, although I do not want to give any strength to the elbow of vexatious or feuding individuals, there must be a right in this regard, and that to curtail it would create an inconsistency in the way in which we regard the right of individual residents to put forward an objection to those licensable activities.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Am I right in thinking that these clauses are new legislation, and that there is nothing in existing legislation regarding—in this case—clubs that enables members or a member to ask in this way for a review of a club certificate?

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

I am unaware that there is anything in current legislation that prevents a single member of a club from issuing a complaint or objection to something that a club does. In that respect, this is not breaking new ground. It simply confirms that that right exists, should an individual club member wish to use it.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister says that nothing would prevent a member from approaching the licensing authority—or whoever—in that way, but the Bill is specifying that right, which gives it a lot more importance and impetus. I can see situations arising in which vexatious individuals might attempt to undermine the authority of the committee of a club. However, during an investigation, it will take time for a licensing authority to conclude that

''the ground is frivolous or vexatious''.

In many cases, it will not be able to ascertain that quickly, particularly if the accusation is of financial impropriety. That may require the club to yield up its accounts and a full investigation to take place, simply on the basis of suspicion on the part of a member. It may well be that at the end of all that the grounds are vexatious and there is no real reason for the challenge, but the damage will have been done by then.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is curious that although, earlier, a justification was offered for placing a higher level of demand for evidence of good faith on profit-making enterprises

than on non-profit-making enterprises, the Minister has avoided that entirely on this occasion? He has avoided accepting my hon. Friend's argument. Clubs are by definition non-profit-making: in many cases they are run not by paid professionals but by volunteers, many of whom are retired people who would not find it easy to deal with the kind of bureaucratic investigation that might follow from such a malign complaint.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is inconsistency in the Government's approach to these matters. The whole reason for separating clubs from other licensed premises is their special nature. There is a requirement to establish that a club was set up in good faith—and, presumably, that it is being run in good faith.

As I have said more than once during this discussion, I am fearful that one or two members who have a gripe can make a false accusation that needs in-depth scrutiny, analysis and investigation. That may prove to be vexatious, but I can see no penalties on those individuals for raising that complaint. There is no comeback on them, but in the meantime the club has been unnecessarily put through the grinder. The whole point about saying that a group of members should get together, whether it be one twentieth—5 per cent.—or less is that at least there will be common ground within the club that serious problems need looking at, rather than only one member being allowed to apply for a review.

The amendment would not curtail the rights of the individual because the person would examine the Bill if it were so amended and say, ''I must get a group of people to support me in what I want to do.'' If I were the individual who considered that matters were going wrong, my first impulse would be to say to the committee, ''By the way, this is not being done right.'' If I were rejected by the committee, I would talk to other members of the club, get together a group and say, ''Look, we are not receiving the right answers from the club committee, so the law gives us the right to ask the licensing authority to consider the matter in more detail.'' I am not asking for a great group of people to take such action, but allowing one member to do so could cause problems. I am not convinced by the Minister's response. Unless he wants to answer any of my points, I may call for a Division on the amendment.

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

If the hon. Gentleman wants to call a Division, so be it, but there are important issues further on in the Bill on which the knife is likely to fall at some stage. The individual whom he accused of being vexatious may not be vexatious. It may be the case that that person cannot convince anyone that something is wrong at the heart of the club. He or she may be right. For us to curtail that person's ability to alter the position is not only inconsistent with the way in which we regard the ability of a single resident to object to licensed premises, but is a denial of something that is important to the life of a club.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am persuaded by the Minister's comments that we have to discuss many other

matters, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.