Clause 85 - Application for review of club premises certificate
Licensing Bill [Lords]
6:15 pm
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.