|
Dr. Howells: Clause 67 provides that references to guests of club members include associate members of the club and guests of associate members of the club and further provides that a person is an associate member of the club, for the purposes of the Bill, if,
''in accordance with the rules of the club, he is admitted to its premises as being a member of another club, and . . . that other club is a recognised club''.
A recognised club is one that satisfies the first three conditions set out in clause 62, as we have agreed.
Amendment No. 205 would change the definition of ''associate member'', requiring that to qualify as such, a person would have to have been a member of the other club for at least two days and that the committee or sub-committee responsible for the supply of alcohol was satisfied that the primary purpose of that other club was not the supply or purchase of alcohol. The amendment would therefore prevent any member of a club whose primary purpose was the sale of alcohol from being an associate member of another club.
I am afraid that I am at a loss to understand the amendment's intention. Let me say once again that the expanded definition of ''guest'' for the purposes of part 4 of the Bill is not a backdoor through which a club can supply alcohol to its members without the need for a club premises certificate or a premises licence. A recognised club is not a guest. Under existing law, members of clubs are able to use associated clubs. As we have heard, a member of a miners' welfare institute in Wales can use another miners' welfare institute when visiting England if the rules of that institute permit that admittance. That seems sensible. It reflects the community role of such clubs and the fact that, traditionally, clubs knit together nationally, not only at local level.
Column Number: 350
The point that the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) made was important. I know for a fact that members of all manner of clubs, including railway clubs and many others, enjoy a pint when, for example, they visit a seaside resort by going into a club. Often, they feel that they are getting a better deal than they might get in another licensed premises, although that is not always the case. The amendment would prevent anyone who is a member of a club whose primary purpose is the sale of alcohol—which includes a great many registered clubs at present—from being treated as an associate member of another club. The Government do not agree that curtailment of the extent to which members of qualifying clubs can use the facilities of other, associated qualifying clubs is justified. Nor do they think it appropriate to prescribe the rules of a club in the Bill, except where that is necessary to impose a qualifying standard for clubs that wish to take advantage of its provisions. I can see no such necessity here. The scheme set out in the Bill reflects closely the position in existing legislation on clubs, which has operated well for a number of years. I therefore hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Mr. Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68
The relevant licensing authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Moss: I have a couple of questions for the Minister on clause 68. Is it a new provision, or does it relate to earlier legislation, in particular the 1964 Act? In how many instances do premises—in this case, club premises—straddle local authority areas? We dealt with that when we discussed pubs straddling licensing areas in various parts of the country, but we did not come to any agreement or discuss the scale of the incidence. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister why this provision has been included. Is it simply lifted from earlier legislation, or has there been a growing problem in the intervening years since 1964 where licensed premises such as clubs fall on the boundaries of relevant licensing authorities? Does the definition of ''premises'' refer to one particular building? Are we talking about adjoining buildings, a group of buildings or buildings that are separated geographically but in the same town or village? Why is the provision included and what is the scale of the problem?
Dr. Howells: I can confirm that the provision is new. The clause provides the means of determining which is the relevant licensing authority for the purpose of part 4. It provides that the relevant licensing authority for these purposes is the authority in which the premises, or the greater part of the premises, is situated. It approaches the determination of the relevant licensing authority in the same way that the Bill approaches premises licences. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.
Column Number: 351
Where club premises straddle two or more authority areas equally, there could be a problem. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how many of those there are, but they must be rare. I have been informed by geographers that boundaries mainly go down the middle of highways and that buildings are usually on either side of them and not in the middle. However, I have also been told that in some market towns there might be a club or pub in a building that was formally a market building and the new configured boundary could go straight through the middle of it. Can the hon. Member for Isle of Wight give us an example?
Mr. Turner: No, but to extend the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, it is conceivable that a large university in a conurbation such as London might have three or four premises, all of which together form the student union. I am not sure whether student unions are covered by the clause, but that is an example.
Dr. Howells: The Committee should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for coming up with that example. I, too, have found a couple of examples. There are very few premises that straddle boundaries, but Earls Court is one. There are also a few pubs on islands in rivers—boundaries often follow the course of rivers. The Bill is merely anticipating a problem and offering a solution. We do not know of any clubs that are so situated, but I am sure that we can dig some up before the end of proceedings.
Mr. Moss: The Minister suggests that there are not many incidences of the problem. Why, then, has his Department seen fit to introduce a new clause for a situation that is hardly worth mentioning?
4.15 pm
Dr. Howells: It does happen occasionally, and, with great respect to the hon. Member for North Devon, the last thing that I want is to give food to lawyers. The clause provides an important mechanism for the resulting uncertainty, and will benefit clubs and local authorities alike.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Authorised persons, interested parties
and responsible authorities
Amendment proposed: No. 15, in
clause 69, page 40, line 36, at end insert—
'( ) a body which—
(i) represents those who, in relation to any such area, are responsible for, or interested in, matters relating to the protection of children from harm, and
(ii) is recognised by the licensing authority for that area for the purposes of this section as being competent to advise it on such matters,'.—[Dr. Howells.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 4.
Column Number: 352
Division No. 10]
AYES
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Crausby, Mr. David
Grogan, Mr. John
Harvey, Nick
Howells, Dr. Kim
Jones, Mr. Kevan
Kemp, Mr. Fraser
Linton, Martin
Stringer, Mr. Graham
NOES
Field, Mr. Mark
Hoban, Mr. Mark
Moss, Mr. Malcolm
Turner, Mr. Andrew
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70
Other definitions relating to clubs
Amendment proposed: No. 16, in
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 4.
Division No. 11]
AYES
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Crausby, Mr. David
Grogan, Mr. John
Harvey, Nick
Howells, Dr. Kim
Jones, Mr. Kevan
Kemp, Mr. Fraser
Linton, Martin
Stringer, Mr. Graham
NOES
Field, Mr. Mark
Hoban, Mr. Mark
Moss, Mr. Malcolm
Turner, Mr. Andrew
Question accordingly agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Hoban: May I ask the Minister about the definition of the word ''secretary''? I am not entirely clear why someone who is not an officer of the club should be able to act as a secretary. Surely, someone acting as a secretary should be recognised by club members as holding particular authority. If anybody in a club were allowed to be, or could claim to be, designated secretary, that role would be diminished. It would be better for there to be a designated secretary who was part of the club committee or, in the absence of a designated secretary, for another club member, such as the chairman, treasurer, or vice-chairman, to act as the designated person for the purposes of the Bill.
Mr. Field: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. There should be a single designated person. There is a risk that for the purposes of the clause, three or four people could purport to be the secretary.
Mr. Hoban: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for adding weight to what I said, as a lawyer—
Mr. Field: A former lawyer.
Mr. Hoban: My hon. Friend says that he is a former lawyer.
Mr. Field: A long time ago.
Column Number: 353
Mr. Hoban: A secretary of a company is a designated person with real standing and status who is appointed at the annual general meeting. However, under the Bill the person designated as secretary could be a typist who comes in one morning a week to type letters for the club chairman. If we are to give powers to someone who is meant to represent the club to the licensing authority, the club should ensure that that person has genuine status and is a genuine officer of the club, not just a typist, whether or not they are defined as a secretary.
|
