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