Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 359, in

clause 73, page 43, line 12, at beginning insert

'Save as provided in subsection (3),'.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 360, in

clause 73, page 43, line 17, at beginning insert

'Save as provided in subsection (3),'.

Amendment No. 361, in

clause 73, page 43, line 22, at end add—

'(3) ''Guest'' in this section shall not include anyone who has paid a member for introduction into the club.'.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) referred in an earlier sitting to an absence of a definition in the Bill of the word ''guest''. I thought about that when I considered the clause. I shall refer later to clause 191, which contains a large number of references to definitions, but the clause is not terribly helpful in this case. In the left hand column, headed ''Expression'', it refers to ''guest'', and in the right hand column, headed ''Interpretation provision'', it states ''section 67''.

If I introduced someone, as my guest, into a club of which I was a member, I would not expect them to pay me for the privilege, nor would I expect them to pay me or to pay across the bar for any of the drinks, other refreshments or entertainments that they enjoyed while they were my guest in that club. On the other hand, the expression ''guest'' can be used by an hotelier to describe someone who would indeed pay for the entertainment, food and drink that he enjoyed while on the hotel premises. What is the definition of guest? Clause 67 is even less helpful than clause 191. The definition in clause 67 forms a perfect circle, saying:

''Any reference . . . to a guest . . . includes a reference to . . . a guest of an associate member of the club.''

That is not what I would call a definition. What is a guest? Is it someone introduced on payment of a fee to the member providing the introduction?

Dr. Howells indicated dissent.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

The Minister shakes his head. Is it possible, for example, for a club to ask a guest to pay an introduction fee to the club rather than to an individual member?

Dr. Howells indicated dissent.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

The Minister shakes his head again. I am interested in that, because many Conservative clubs do in fact require a guest to pay an introduction fee not to the member introducing them but to the club to which they are introduced.

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

I am fascinated to hear that there are Conservative clubs that impose a charge on guests. Presumably, those are guests of members of the Conservative club or of a club affiliated to it, or of a club to which the Conservative club concerned is affiliated. I do not know if we are talking about Freshwater again, but there is nothing to prevent that club, in its standing orders or rules, from charging anyone coming in under such circumstances if they see fit. However, we would not prescribe that and I am sure that it is not prescribed in any national legislation. We are certainly not doing so in the Bill.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I welcome the fact that the Minister—I think that I understood him correctly—is not prescribing that a guest should pay a fee. However, I think that he is also not prescribing that a guest should

not pay a fee, either for the card that entitles them to the introduction, which we call an inter-affiliation card, or for an introduction to a particular club. I question whether someone can properly be described as a guest who has paid a fee to the member undertaking the introduction. I tabled the amendment to divine that. I do not have a particularly strong view one way or the other, but I am aware that the Bill is a little vague in its definition.

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

The term ''guest'' has never required definition under licensing law and that has never given rise, so far as any of us understand, to any particular difficulties. It is left to the rules of the club. If a scam is operating in some clubs that he knows of, whereby members actually charge a guest a fee, which they then harvest and take away, that is a nice little earner but it is certainly not the intention of the Bill.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I know of no such club in my constituency, although what happens on this island may be entirely different from what happens there.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

My hon. Friend raises an interesting spectre when he talks about payment. He has mentioned payment to the introducing member or to the club. If the emphasis of the legislation as it pertains to clubs is that alcohol is supplied, not sold to club members—in other words, the club members own the liquor store—how can a guest go in and pay, perhaps over the bar, for liquor that should be supplied to members only?

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I might need notice of that question if I am to get my head round it. On the face of it, it would seem unusual to expect a guest to pay for any drinks, refreshments or entertainment in a club. The Minister is describing neither a narrow course nor a winding course. On the issue in question, he is like someone who walks across open moorland without worrying too much about where the footpath is. Since he came to my constituency to launch the ''Walk the Wight'' walking festival about 12 months ago, he is welcome to describe such a broad course without regard to any particular boundaries because, like the law in the present case, a footpath can be immensely broad and have no discernible boundaries. I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong, but it appears from what he said that guest has no known definition as far as such a person's eligibility to pay for refreshment is concerned.

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

In this place, as you well know to your cost and I to mine, Mr. Gale, there is a big sign above Stranger's Bar that says, ''Strangers may not pay for drinks''. Over the years and in the course of research for the Committee stage of the Bill I have been in many clubs. In some, guests are allowed to go to a bar and pay for a drink, in others they are not and a member of that club must pay for the drink. What happens is down to the rules of the club. That is what is wonderful about clubs and why they are different from licensed premises. Clubs are very special places that make up their rules. Those rules are sometimes strange and sometimes sensible. However, I am sure that neither we nor the hon. Gentleman want the Bill to prescribe what clubs can and cannot do in relation to their guests.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

The Minister is correct: I want neither to proscribe nor prescribe. What the Minister has said is a wonderful introduction to a later amendment of mine, so I will, with the leave of the Committee, not press the amendment.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Amendment, by leave, not moved.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 321, in

clause 73, page 43, line 22, at end add—

'(3) Where the rules of a club prohibit the sale by retail of alcohol on any premises by or on behalf of the club to, or to a guest of, an associate member of the club, no condition may be attached to a club premises certificate in respect of the sale by retail of alcohol on any premises by or on behalf of the club so as to permit the sale by retail of alcohol on any premises by or on behalf of the club to, or to a guest of, an associate member of the club.'.

This is a short amendment and follows on from the theme of prescribing and proscribing conditions for clubs and their guests. I have sought to table the mirror image of subsection (1). The amendment says that when a club for whatever reason chooses to prohibit the sale by retail of alcohol to a guest or an associate, there should be no opportunity for the licensing authority to overturn the prohibition in the club's rules or standing orders. Under subsection (1), if the club allows alcohol to be sold, provisions that prevent it from being sold should not be imposed as a condition by the licensing authority, whereas the amendment seeks to reverse the situation. A club might decide that only full members—not associate members—can buy alcohol. In such cases, nothing in the clause should enable a local authority to overturn what might be a long-standing and highly cherished rule of that club. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is neither prescription nor proscription in the Bill, as there is under subsection (1).

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

Clause 73 provides that no conditions can be attached to a club premises certificate to prevent the sale by retail of alcohol to, or provision of regulated entertainment for, associate members of the club or their guests if they are permitted by the club's rules. This is to ensure that clubs that have applied for a certificate and that have met the various conditions, which include requirements about club rules and membership and that the club be operated in good faith, are not prevented from operating freely.

As the hon. Gentleman said, amendment No. 321 would add a provision that no conditions may be attached to a club premises certificate in respect of the sale by retail of alcohol to associate members of the club or their guests if this is prohibited by the rules of the club. The amendment is in the same vein as the provisions in clause 73, in that it seeks to protect the ability of clubs to govern their own affairs. However, it is not necessary. Licensing authorities will be able to attach conditions beyond those set out in the club operating schedule only if they are necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives provided for in clause 72, which relate to the determination of an application for a club premises certificate.

There is no locus for licensing authorities to interfere with the affairs of clubs save where, following relevant representations, it is considered necessary to prevent the undermining of the licensing objectives of preventing crime, disorder and nuisance,

protecting children from harm, and maintaining public safety in the context of the qualifying club activities. For example, licensing authorities cannot interfere with club policies on the privileges enjoyed by full or associate members as defined in clause 67 of the Bill.

The amendment could be interpreted as an attempt to ensure that if clubs operate what some may consider discriminatory policies on the privileges enjoyed by associate members—again, as defined in the Bill—but not by the club's members, they will be safe from any conditions attached by a licensing authority wishing to address that. However, I stress for the hon. Gentleman that the licensing authority is given no power to do that in the Bill.

Given my assurances that licensing authorities will not have a free rein but will be able to attach conditions beyond those consistent with the club operating schedule only if relevant representations have been received and the conditions are necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I am grateful for the Minister's assurances. Clearly, if, according to the club rules, alcohol cannot be sold to just anybody, some of the licensing objectives will not be met anyway. The Minister has given me the assurances that I sought, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.