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