Clause 86 - Determination of application for review
Licensing Bill [Lords]
6:30 pm

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 334, in

clause 86, page 49, line 44, leave out '(not exceeding three months)'.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 335, in

clause 88, page 50, line 38, after 'authority', insert

', either as a result of a determination under section 86, or resulting from the licensing authority's own investigation involving a hearing, as under section 86(2),'.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The amendment refers to a situation in which a review has been considered and determined, after which time the licensing authority is required to take certain steps. Under subsection (4)(a) or (b), if one of the steps is either ''to modify'' or

''to exclude a qualifying club activity'',

the authority may provide

''that the modification or exclusion is to have effect for only such period (not exceeding three months) as it may specify.''

Removing ''not exceeding three months'' would give the local authority the responsibility to determine the period on the basis of the evidence before it, the importance of the situation and the seriousness of the charges that have been determined. It would give it flexibility. My proposal is a probing amendment. Why have the Government seen fit to include a period ''not exceeding three months'' in the Bill? If a serious indictment or charge had been found wanting, surely a period of more than three months may be in order.

However, if the licence were modified and certain steps were excluded, and the club says, ''Okay, we understand that we have done wrong. We will put such matters right immediately,'' surely such flexibility would give the licensing authority the ability to say, ''As soon as you prove that to us, be it in three months or three weeks, we will reconsider the matter and alter the situation.'' The amendment is by way of saying that there should be flexibility in the Bill in case the period exceeds three months for any reason.

Amendment No. 335 to clause 88 relates to the club ceasing to be a qualifying club. If the relevant licensing authority thinks that a club does not satisfy the conditions for being a qualifying club, it can give notice to it and withdraw the appropriate certificate. The determination that leads to that takes place under clause 85(1), under which a review of the certificate can be instigated by

''(a) an interested party,

(b) a responsible authority, or

(c) a member of the club''.

We have just had the debate about the member of the club.

I can envisage a situation arising in which none of the groups had been informed that there was a problem with the club and its compliance with the law or the conditions on its certificate. Also, we should allow the licensing authority to instigate its own investigation if it has noticed a problem, rather than waiting for someone else to come along and say that there was a problem. I know that the definition of a responsible authority under an earlier clause alludes to certain departments of local authorities, particularly environmental heath, but I am not sure whether it allows the authority to begin an investigation or review of its own volition.

What I have said under the amendment is that the authority must hold a hearing, which is provided for in clause 86(2). The authority can start with the review. It holds the hearing, which is conducted in the normal way according to the due processes outlined in earlier clauses, and comes to a determination in the usual way. The amendment would give it the power to intervene and hold a review and come to a determination of its own volition.

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

In setting out why we oppose amendment No. 334, I must make it clear that the clause allows licensing authorities to modify permanently the conditions of a club premises certificate, or indeed to exclude club-qualifying activity permanently from the certificate following a review. It provides, however, that where the licensing authority does not believe that a permanent change is necessary and wishes to take such steps for a limited time only, the period cannot exceed three months. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that that is not a fixed period; the licensing authority cannot go beyond three months.

If permanent modifications of conditions or exclusions of activities are necessary to promote the licensing objectives, those are the steps that should be taken. When a licensing authority does not believe that permanent modification or exclusion is necessary—for example it might not have been necessary for the modification or exclusion to have effect while the club takes action to amend its practices—there should be a limit on the period that a licensing authority can specify for the steps to have effect.

The result of removing the limit might be for licensing authorities to specify a period of several years, but such a period would be tantamount to a permanent step. If that is what is required, that is the step that the licensing authority should take, openly and clearly. Either the club is causing such a problem that permanent measures are necessary or it is not, in which case the steps should have effect for a relatively short time. We could argue about whether three months is the right limit or whether it should be two or four months. We believe that we have the balance right.

Clause 88 sets out the circumstances under which a club ceases to be a qualifying club. Subsection (1) provides that if a club holds a club premises certificate and it appears to the licensing authority that the club

does not satisfy the conditions for being a qualifying club in respect of a qualifying club activity to which the certificate relates, the authority must give a notice to the club withdrawing the certificate so far as it relates to that activity. The conditions include the general conditions set out in clause 62, such as that the club is established in good faith as a club, and the additional conditions that must be satisfied if the club wishes to supply alcohol, such as those requiring the purchase and supply of alcohol to be managed by a committee.

Amendment No. 335 would provide that a licensing authority could withdraw a club premises certificate if it believed that a club did not satisfy the conditions for being a qualifying club in respect of a qualifying club activity only if it came to its decision following the determination of an application for review under clause 86 or following an investigation involving a hearing as a result of an application for review.

The special provisions in the Bill for qualifying clubs, which reflect the existing provisions for registered clubs, have been preserved because we recognise the important community role that such clubs play. The fact that they operate under a different regime to other licensed premises is, however, reflected in the conditions that they must satisfy to be considered as qualifying clubs. The conditions are not particularly onerous, but they are important.

I see no reason to limit the ability of a licensing authority to withdraw a club's certificate in respect of a qualifying club activity such that it can do so only after a determination of a review or as a result of an investigation related to a review. If it becomes clear to the licensing authority at any time that the club is not meeting the necessary conditions, it should be able to take appropriate action and withdraw the club's certificate and, as a result, the privileges that it enjoys.

For instance, what if an upstanding club member who was unhappy that the club did not satisfy the conditions set out in the Bill, perhaps by allowing persons to be admitted to membership without an interval of two days between application and admission, informed the licensing authority but, for whatever reason, did not want to apply for a review? Do hon. Members believe that in such circumstances the licensing authority should be forced to sit by hoping that someone will ask for a review of the certificate? That could take some time—it may never happen—and, under the amendment, no action could be taken until a hearing or investigation had taken place. A more immediate course of action must be available to the authority to ensure that clubs satisfy the conditions set out in the Bill or have their special rights removed. With that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 86, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.