Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 352, in

clause 72, page 42, line 25, at end insert—

'(3A) In subsection (3) ''hearing'' may, where the authority, the applicant and each person who has made representations agree, include exchange of written representations.'.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 353, in

clause 72, page 42, line 25, at end insert—

'(3B) Where a person who has made representations has given notice that, for reasons of special circumstances including but not limited to language, disability or responsibility as a carer or as an employee, a hearing should be conducted other than in the normal manner for that authority, the licensing authority shall take reasonable steps to accommodate those special circumstances.'.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Thank you, Mr. Gale. Clearly, the delirious pleasure of having almost a whole day to spend before considering the Bill has caught up with me. These two amendments invite the Government to

express their view on the guidance that Ministers intend to provide about the nature of the hearings and to say how prescriptive they will be about them. The first amendment is about whether the word ''hearing'' is to be taken literally, or whether it could include what is meant when we say that a planning inspector ''hears'' an inquiry that is undertaken by an exchange of written representations.

When planning inspectors hold local inquiries, they do not necessarily assemble all the witnesses for and against a specific planning application in a room and hear the case for and against. They have the opportunity to undertake the inquiry by means of written representation. That method has several benefits and disbenefits. Among the benefits is the fact that the inquiry can be conducted at a distance. For example, it would not be necessary for a planning inspector to travel to a distant part of the country. Similarly, if the amendment were accepted, or if the Government intended to make such arrangements in their guidance, it would not be necessary for a licensing committee to travel to a distant part of a local authority area.

Many local authorities cover relatively small areas, and it is not difficult for people to travel from one end of them to the other. Other areas are larger, however. My local authority area is by no means the largest in the country, but it is still 26 miles from Totland to Bembridge, and a councillor who represented Totland would have to travel to the centre of the island.

Under amendment No. 353, when

''the authority, the applicant and each person who has made representations''

so agreed, the hearing could take place by means of an ''exchange of written representations''. The Government have accepted the general formula when there is agreement that, for example, nothing further needs to be done to an application before it is approved. They have accepted that the agreement of the authority, the applicant and each person who has made representations is sufficient reason for a hearing not to take place.

I propose that there be a halfway house. A full hearing would perhaps assemble many members of a licensing committee or the sub-committee of a licensing authority, some officers, many representatives of those making representations, and, of course, the applicant. It might also bring together lawyers and miscellaneous other people who draw their incomes from the promotion of, or opposition to, such proposals. The amendment would allow a written exchange instead of a meeting. That would often mean that lawyers did not have a long and costly journey before they could take part.

With amendment No. 353, I am seeking the Government's view on whether a hearing—in the more literal sense of the word—should automatically be held where the local authority deems appropriate. That may be in a town or county hall or at a council office, perhaps some distance from many of those making representations. Under the amendment, if a person who had made representations gave notice of special circumstances that made it more convenient for

them for the hearing to be conducted elsewhere, the local authority would be required to

''take reasonable steps to accommodate those special circumstances.''

Many local authorities do not have one literal centre where all local hearings take place, but others do. In some local authorities, the council offices are spread around the area, although all the meetings are held in one place. That is the case in my constituency. The amendment begins:

''Where a person who has made representations has given notice that, for reasons of special circumstances''—

and I set out some examples of such circumstances, one of which might be language difficulties. Different languages might be used in parts of the local authority area. Disability, too, might make it difficult for some to gain access not just to the premises but to the very town in which the local authority usually held its meetings. In such cases it might be appropriate, for the hearing to be held more locally; that would be more for the convenience of those making representations than for that of the local authority.

Some people might find it difficult to get time off work to attend, and those with responsibilities as carers might not be able to attend a meeting that took place during the working day. It might be appropriate for them to ask the local authority to arrange for the meeting to take place outside normal working hours, if possible. The reverse might be the case in an area where there are many elderly people who prefer not to go out after dark, perhaps because of the very problems—congestion in the streets, noise, and the threat, perceived or real, of violence—that the Bill is designed to overcome.

Does the Minister intend his guidance on the conduct of the hearings to allow a hearing to take place by means of written representation, and would he require the local authority to take steps to accommodate those in special circumstances? If he can give those assurances, we may be able to cut this debate short.

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

I shall speak briefly in support of my hon. Friend's amendments. He makes a valid point about geography. A local authority area might be dozens of miles across, and it might be difficult to have a personal hearing.

My hon. Friend drew an analogy in relation to planning committee meetings. That is a curiosity that I have found even within the confines of two neighbouring London boroughs—the one on which I served as a councillor, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and the one that I currently represent in Parliament, the City of Westminster. They have very different policies on planning meetings. In Kensington and Chelsea, there is an automatic right for a would-be objector to have a public hearing at a planning meeting—[Interruption.]

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentlemen who are talking are discussing the

intricacies of clause 72, but I would be grateful if they would do so out of my earshot.

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

Thank you, Mr. Gale. I appreciate that the workings of two London boroughs are of great interest to everybody, particularly those on the Liberal Democrat Benches.

To return to my point, in Westminster there is no right for an objector to have a private hearing, and matters are dealt with through written representations alone.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is correct that there should be an onus on the authority to have a fully-fledged hearing: the Government's thinking recognises that. However, where all parties are happy to deal with a matter simply by written representations, to do so makes sense. That is certainly the case from the perspective of someone who has served on a local authority, as I, and many other Committee members, have, because we will all recall how, when a meeting goes on late into the night—until about 10 o'clock or 10.15—and when there is a massive 150-page bundle of papers to be dealt with, it is all too easy for important matters to go through on the nod, which is wrong. The protection that the Government set out in subsection (3) should apply unless all parties agree, as a default, to have fully-fledged written representations.

On the other amendment, I support what my hon. Friend said about those with special circumstances, particularly the physically or mentally disabled. That consideration would also apply where there are language difficulties throughout urban Britain, as well as in rural areas.

I hope that the Government will give some thought to this. It is a sensible compromise, and I am not moving away from the idea that in the normal course of events there should be a fully-fledged licensing hearing at which such matters would be discussed.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Gale, following the break in the Committee's deliberations.

I support the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), because the requirement to hold a public hearing could be seen by many as unduly burdensome on the council, the applicants and those making representations against an application for a premises licence. It is more in the interests of all concerned that where possible, people simply submit representations, rather than have to turn up and present their case to the committee.

In Fareham people have the right to make public their objections to a planning application: three people can make a deputation and they are allowed to speak for three minutes each. That works effectively. However, many objections to planning applications are made in writing. Having written to the council, such people do not see the need to make their case in public; they are happy to leave their representations lying on the table, knowing that the council officers will have made the planning committee aware of them before the meeting. Where appropriate, only written representations should be considered necessary,

because otherwise people will have to be brought together at a time convenient to the applicant, the committee and those who have made the representations.

To expedite the entire process of applying for a licence, it would be in the Government's interests to accept my hon. Friend's amendment, and I commend it to the Committee.

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

Clause 72 sets out the procedures for determining an application for a club premises certificate. They closely mirror the equivalent procedure set out in clause 19 for determining an application for a premises licence. As we have heard, amendment No. 352 seeks to make it explicit that a hearing may take the form of an exchange of written representations if each person who has made representations agrees.

The amendment is unnecessary. Subsection (3) provides that if the licensing authority,

''the applicant and each person who has made such representations agree that a hearing is unnecessary'',

the licensing authority is not compelled to hold one, but that does not mean that the representations will not be considered. We have heard parallels drawn with planning procedures in some local authorities. However, a licensing authority may still consider any relevant representations received and, having regard to those, take such steps it considers necessary for the promotion of its licensing objectives. The Bill already achieves what the amendment seeks; I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 353 would require a licensing authority, when holding a hearing, to take reasonable steps to accommodate any special circumstances of the participants,

''including but not limited to language, disability or responsibility as a carer or as an employee''.

I confirm, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, that I would be happy to provide guidance to the licensing authorities to ensure that if it were necessary for a local resident or club member to give evidence and that person required an interpreter,one should be available.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Does the Bill define what constitutes a hearing? Are we talking about all of the licensing committee or a part of it? What would the quorum be? In the interests of consistency, should not the same people evaluate similar circumstances at each hearing, so that a common approach is taken towards people who come to them?

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

I agree that there is nothing more infuriating than having constantly to deal with different people in a local authority or other agency—to have to bring them up to speed and hear people say, ''We can't find your file,'' or ''We didn't receive that letter.'' We have, as Members of Parliament, heard such stories a thousand times. Nevertheless, clause 180 is clear about the need for the continuity described by the hon. Gentleman. I

agree that there ought to be a consistent approach to ensure that the licensing authority deals swiftly and efficiently with cases that come before it.

I was asked about smaller-scale hearings. The Bill already provides for matters, including hearings, to be discharged by sub-committees consisting of three members of the licensing committee. I am sure that hon. Members recall that, because we discussed it at some length. Clause 180 provides for regulations to be made governing the terms of any hearings; those could cover the processes, time limits and arrangements for the disclosure of evidence. That would ensure that people could be properly represented by lawyers, if they so chose. The regulations will ensure that there is fairness, propriety and consistency. In any other matters, the licensing authority may regulate its own procedure.

The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) asked about late hearings. That is an important point. I have heard horror stories about planning committees meeting late at night, long after objectors have gone to bed. We must ensure that the guidance highlights the need for a sensible approach to such matters, which, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, must be fair to all.

I certainly appreciate the intention behind the amendment. It is laudable and closely coincides with the aims and achievements of the Government's equality policy during the past six years. However, we need to bear in mind that this is a licensing Bill, not an equality Bill. Equality issues apply to all aspects of public life, and it is not sensible to try to address them in a piecemeal fashion. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight knows, we have been continually active in addressing equality issues across the piece. For example, the Government have incorporated the implementation of the Commission for Racial Equality's ''Equality standard for local government'' into best value performance indicators for local authorities. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels passionately about the issue, because we have spoken about it together before.

The equality standard is designed to ensure that local authorities consider issues such as gender, race, disability and other equality issues at all levels of council policy and practice. It is a framework to help local authorities introduce a comprehensive and systematic approach to equality issues. It allows the same framework to be used for addressing all disadvantaged groups, but recognises the view that race, gender and disability cannot be dealt with as a single issue, and that barriers will vary. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight told us, each strand requires separate treatment.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Can the Minister confirm that the policies to which he refers specifically require local authorities to take account of the responsibilities that make it difficult for a carer, or an employee, to attend meetings in working hours?

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

I think that I have given the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. We expect the needs of those important groups of people—they often are

groups, not just individuals—to be taken care of. As the hon. Gentleman says, they may have limitations on their time, for example.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), the fact that a hearing is held does not compel people to attend if they have made written representations. The Bill simply provides that the licensing committee must hold a hearing. The hon. Gentleman drew parallels with other functions of local government where that is the case, and the Government expect it to be the case here.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I am happy to note the Minister's assurances. Clause 72 mirrors an earlier clause, and the fact that he thinks that subsection (3) covers my first amendment is welcome. I am also grateful for his confirmation that he will give guidance on what should happen when it is necessary to provide an interpreter, and that the objections to the timetable of those who find attending difficult owing to work or care responsibilities will taken account of. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 20, in

clause 72, page 42, line 27, after second 'to', insert—

'(i) '.

No. 21, in

clause 72, page 42, line 29, after 'objectives', insert ', and

(ii) section (club premises certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises)(2) to (5)'.

No. 22, in

clause 72, page 42, line 32, at end insert—

'( ) Subsections (2) and (3)(b) are subject to section (club premises certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises)(1) (certificate may authorise off-supplies only if it authorises on-supplies).'.—[Dr. Howells.]

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 358, in

clause 72, page 43, line 10, at end add—

'(10) Nothing in this or the foregoing section shall require either an applicant to apply for or a licensing authority to determine a club premises certificate and a premises licence separately.

(11) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make such provisions as are necessary to enable an applicant to apply for or a licensing authority to determine a club premises certificate and a premises licence concurrently.'.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 354, in

clause 82, page 46, line 27, at end insert—

'(1A) For the purpose of this section ''variation of the certificate'' includes applying for or applying to vary a premises licence in respect of the same premises.'.

Amendment No. 355, in

clause 82, page 46, line 28, leave out 'Subsection (1) is' and insert

'Subsections (1) and (1A) are'.

Amendment No. 356, in

clause 82, page 46, line 32, after 'certificate', insert

'(and, where one is the subject of the application, the premises licence)'.

Amendment No. 357, in

clause 82, page 46, line 33, at end insert

'or the licence, or both'.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

These amendments develop something that I confess I worked out for myself only during our last sitting. It is possible—indeed, it is likely in many circumstances—that the same premises will require both a club certificate and a premises licence. It might therefore be appropriate for it to be made clear that the applicant may apply for, and the authority may determine whether to give, a club premises certificate and a premises licence concurrently. In other words, those two things can happen through the same process rather than through parallel processes, and at the same hearing and through the same representation process, rather than through two separate representation processes. In particular, where the same areas of the same building are concerned, it seems absurd to have two separate processes running, without their having to have regard to each other by law.

The amendment is simple. It makes it clear, in case that should be necessary, that nothing in clause 71 or 72 requires the applicant or the licensing authority to deal with the two different types of animal separately. I would not normally propose to give the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers, but in view of where we are in our consideration of the Bill, there is little alternative. My proposed new subsection (11) allows the Secretary of State

''to make such provisions as are necessary to enable an applicant to apply for or a licensing authority to determine a club premises certificate and a premises licence concurrently.''

Amendments Nos. 354 to 357 seek merely to amend clause 82 to give effect to the proposals that I have already outlined.

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

There are circumstances in which a club may wish to apply both for a club premises certificate and a premises licence in respect of the same premises. The Bill as drafted does not prevent that, nor does it prevent the licensing committee from considering the two applications simultaneously. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some comfort. However, it remains the case that separate applications must be made, although some documentation, such as the plan of the premises, may in some circumstances be common to both applications.

As I have explained to the Committee previously, clubs are considered separately under the Bill because different considerations arise. I hope that I have made it clear that clubs are essentially private premises to which public access is controlled, and where alcohol is generally supplied otherwise than for profit. For those reasons, and to reflect the current position of clubs under the 1964 Act, the system set out in part 4 of the Bill treats clubs differently. Clubs that meet the various qualifying conditions can apply for a certificate authorising the carrying on of qualifying club activities. In addition, applications for club premises certificates authorising the supply of alcohol need not specify a designated premises supervisor. That is different from the arrangements for licensed premises.

Furthermore, it is likely that a club premises certificate and a premises licence covering the same premises will cover different licensable activities or circumstances relating to qualifying club activities and licensable activities. If they did not, there would be little point in having both a certificate and a premises licence for the same premises. Even where the premises licence covered, for example, the sale of alcohol in exactly the same conditions and during the same hours as the supply of alcohol under the club premises certificate, the application for the premises licence would still need to specify the designated premises supervisor for the premises.

In short, applications for premises licences, for club premises certificates and for the variations of those that could follow later will in many cases have to be distinct documents and will raise different considerations. They should therefore remain distinct, although there is nothing to stop licensing committees considering applications for premises licences and club premises certificates at the same time, or the same documentation being submitted to cover both applications where appropriate.

The Bill's approach to clubs, which seeks to preserve their special status under existing legislation, has been discussed and agreed with the club movement. I share that movement's aim of keeping bureaucracy to a minimum. I am sure that the whole Committee agrees with that. However, it is not appropriate for the two application processes to be combined into one to the extent suggested in the amendments—although I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is actually saying that they should be, and I am sure that he will let us know about that. The issues that arise differ in important respects. I hope that in the light of the reassurances that I have given, and the explanation of why the issues are different, the amendments will be withdrawn.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I assure the Minister that it is my intention not that the two processes should be combined, but that they could be combined. We are in danger of legislating for the most difficult cases, while having inadequate regard for the circumstances of small clubs. The Minister emphasised the need for alcohol licences, and I understand that. In many cases, although club premises are used to sell alcohol to their members, it would not be in their interests to have a widespread and competing trade for the sale of alcohol to non-members. That would deter people from joining the club in the first place. What might be provided for is the occasional letting of rooms to, for instance, a dominoes club or other organisation of that kind. It would be reasonable, in those circumstances, to apply for an alcohol licence and, therefore, a premises licence. There would also be a requirement to appoint a designated premises supervisor, who could be the steward of the club, but there is no requirement for that to be the case. That would not be a major part of the club's activity, but it would mean that to have to make separate applications would be an additional bureaucratic effort, despite what the Minister says.

In our last sitting, I cited the example of the Freshwater Conservative club in my constituency,

which often holds discos for young people. A licence is required to hold a disco and it is not possible to do so on a club premises certificate if the patrons are not members of the club. The club therefore has to acquire a premises licence, although it does not need to provide a dedicated premises supervisor, as I understand it, because it is not proposing to sell alcohol to the young people. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the request for a licence could be tagged on to the club certificate in an application, rather than be the subject of a separate application. It would be a means of reducing the amount of bureaucracy. It would also be a means of reducing cost, because a small and not unduly wealthy club may wish to make a single application and pay a single fee. That may be a consideration.

I welcome the Minister's confirmation that there is no requirement for the local authority to consider the applications separately. They can, if they choose, consider them together. However, I am disappointed that the Minister does not feel that it is possible to permit a single application to embrace both sorts of licence. I see from his demeanour that that is the position that he holds. In the circumstances, I do not suppose that he will change that position for my benefit this afternoon.

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

I cannot resist it. I was not going to tell the Committee this, but it is time for a confession. It may be helpful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to learn that the Government originally considered a single procedure for clubs and licensed premises. However, the clubs movement, including Conservative and Labour clubs—I am not certain about the position of Liberal clubs—pressed for a separate system that preserved their unique arrangements. We were persuaded that separation should be preserved. It is, therefore, a natural consequence of the club movement's preferences that the Bill is drafted in that way. I do not know what the views of Freshwater Conservative club were. I did not notice the club when I stayed in Freshwater in the west of the hon. Gentleman's constituency—very delightful, it was, too. Perhaps, it did not contribute to the debate when policy was being formed by the club movement, but that was the movement's view.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Who can argue with the combined might of those two wonderful movements? I am happy to beg to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I believe that this is the opportunity to reflect on a comment that the Minister made about it not being necessary, when determining whether it is appropriate for a club to sell alcohol, for the club to have a designated premises supervisor. Nowhere else could I raise the matter without having to table an amendment.

It is clear that pubs require the licence holder or a designated premises supervisor to be there. When we discussed the requirements on a village hall or church hall that sought to be licensed, we learned that not

only would the venue need a premises licence, but a member of the committee had to have a personal licence. However, it is clearly part of the lighter-touch regulation of qualifying clubs that no premises supervisor need be designated, nor need anyone have a personal licence. So there is a mismatch in the treatment of pubs, community halls, church halls and—in the middle—clubs. Can we have on record the reason for the lighter-touch regime? We heard in previous debates about the primacy of the steward in arranging clubs and providing alcohol and the pivotal role that a steward can play in making a club good or bad. It is worth knowing why it is not necessary for a steward to have a personal licence or to be a designated premises supervisor.

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

I am glad that the hon. Member for Fareham has given me an opportunity to explain the clause at greater length, because it is important to define the key differences—he alluded to some of them—between a licensed premises and a club. Clubs are important parts of our society. The club secretary will discharge the administrative duties. The Committee has discussed the importance of the police, the licensing body or the responsible body being able to ask someone, ''Who is in charge here? Where are the rules?'' We also discussed the role and status of the secretary.

The certificate must be granted only subject to such conditions as are consistent with the club operating schedule, unless relevant representations are made in respect of the application for that certificate. Where relevant representations are received, the licensing authority must hold a hearing. People have to be able to represent the club; it has to be clear that it has responsible authorities. However, that case is different from that of the designated premises supervisor; the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that.

The test for what amounts to relevant representations is set out in the clause—that is why it is important. It requires that representations should be made in time by an interested party or a responsible authority, which is defined in clause 69, and that they should relate to the likely effect of the granting of the certificate on the promotion of the licensing objectives. Just as in the case of licensed premises, where representations are made by interested parties, if the licensing authority determines that they are vexatious or frivolous or a repeat of something heard earlier, it can refuse to take them seriously and to hold a hearing. It has to explain to those who have sent in the representations or concerns why it has done so, and it has to be able to explain the reasons for its decisions to the interested parties.

If relevant representations are made when the hearing is held, or where it has been dispensed with by agreement, the licensing authority must grant the certificate, if it considers it necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. The hon. Gentleman reminded us that the same thing would apply to a licensed premises. It must grant that certificate subject to the conditions that are consistent with a club operating schedule modified as the authority considers

necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. It must exclude any of the club activities applied for, or reject the application.

Different conditions may be imposed in relation to different parts of the premises or in respect of different qualifying club activities. By setting out clearly the way in which an application for a club premises certificate must be treated, both when relevant representations have been made about it or when they have not, the clause reflects the aim throughout the Bill of striking a fair balance between the industry and those affected by it. It provides a simple administrative procedure for applications where appropriate, and greater scrutiny when needed.

I turn to the point that the hon. Gentleman made at the end about the question of who becomes responsible. He is right to talk about the special place of the steward, who could be an employee and a member of the club. If he or she is a member, that imposes special conditions on the role that he or she may play in selling alcohol to club members in relation to the generation of private profit. The club secretary is key to the matter. The responsibilities and role of the club secretary are important in reflecting the decisions taken by the club committee.

Clubs are different from licensed premises. The two institutions are very different and I am not sure whether I have made that clear to the hon. Gentleman. The premises supervisor may be an employee of a big pub chain. He may be an owner-occupier, or a tenant of a licensed premises, but he is different from the secretary of a club who, after all, is acting on the decisions taken by the club committee. That is why clubs are different from licensed premises and why the licensed premises supervisor is a different creature from the secretary or the steward.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I can see what he is driving at and why there is no requirement on the part of the steward or club secretary to have a personal licence. My understanding of his argument is that the secretary and the club committee are expected to be so intimately bound up with the running of the premises that the nature of the relationship is very different to that of a big pub company or an individual licensed premises. That explanation is entirely satisfactory.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 72, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.