HL Deb 18 July 1961 vol 233 cc633-44

Management of Club

General meetings

(4) At a general meeting the voting must be confined to members, and all members entitled to use the club premises must be entitled to vote, and must have equal voting rights:

Provided that—

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is another of the Amendments in which I am trying to deal with the point that we do not want a club to be run by a small minority of the members. We are trying to deal with all foreseeable circumstances. Your Lordships will have noticed that paragraph 2 (4) of the Fifth Schedule governs voting at general meetings or elections and provides that all members must be entitled to vote, with the exception of the classes of members listed in the proviso. This Amendment provides for the case of family membership. Many clubs have rules that provide that the husband or wife of a member may become a member on payment of a reduced subscription but may not vote. Sometimes this concession is extended to the children of members. This Amendment adds this family class of non-voting members to those classes already in the proviso. I think that your Lordships will realise that this is a sensible proposal to meet a situation which often arises. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 60, line 5, at end insert— ("and (c) if the rules make special provision for family membership or family subscriptions or any similar provision, the rules may exclude from voting either generally or on particular matters, all or any of the persons taking the benefit of that provision as being members of a person's family, other than that person.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I think that this is a good addition to the Schedule, and welcome it. In the interval between now and Report stage, I am going to pay a little attention to see whether the Government have carried into effect all that they said would be carried into effect in these provisions. For example, I want to be satisfied that there is not a sort of proprietor's place; that he is not going to hand out special rights to members of his family or maybe have a consortium of a limited number of members with shares or voting qualifications upon the number of shares held, whether they are fictitious shares or not, in order to get complete power centred in the proprietor. But as regards dealing with the possible misuse of family voting rights, to the exclusion of the rights of the rest of the members, I think that this is good and we accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

9.35 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in paragraph 4 (4) to add to the proviso: (c) the rules may exclude from voting members who are temporary, country, overseas or service members or who do not pay the full annual subscription.

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment has the intention of adding yet another sub-paragraph to the provisos in paragraph 2 of the Schedule in circumstances in which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has just set out for your Lordships. It would have the advantage, if it is accepted by your Lordships, of allowing sporting clubs such as golf clubs and other varieties to have a provision in their rules which would not allow certain classes of members, such as country and part-time members, to have full voting rights, but such clubs would still get the benefit when they came up for registration or for renewal of licence which is given to them by Clause 22 (9) of the Bill. It seems that there are many clubs in this country of the golf club type which at the moment have some such provision in their rules, and this provision is not in any way operated to the detriment either of the club or the public. It would therefore seem right that some such provision as I suggest should be included in the Schedule, so that these clubs with this particular variety of rule should not lose the privilege given to them under the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 5, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross always moves his Amendments in a very attractive way, but I feel that this one goes too far. If your Lordships will be good enough to look at page 59 of the Bill, you will see that the general rule in sub-paragraph (4) is: At a general meeting the voting must be confined to members, and all members entitled to use the club premises must be entitled to vote, and must have equal voting rights. That is the central point on which I am afraid I have been rather harping tonight. There are two provisos. The first is: the rules may exclude from voting, either generally or on particular matters, members below a specified age … women if the club is primarily a men's club … The second proviso is: If the club is primarily a club for persons qualified by service or past service, or by any particular service or past service, in Her Majesty's forces, the rules may exclude persons not qualified. That refers to a sort of British Legion club, where it is confined to people who have been in the Services and they may have other members who have not been in the Services and are not entitled to vote. Then, with the approval of the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, we added the provision that if they had a female membership the wife and children would not necessarily vote.

But now my noble friend wants to go far beyond that. He wants to exclude from the voting temporary, country, overseas or Service members or"— and this is his last class— who do not pay the full annual subscription. With great respect to my noble friend, that Amendment would have the effect of allowing a club so to arrange its affairs that a minority of members could run the club for their own benefit. To take an extreme example, the proprietor of a club could choose rules under which he and a relatively few friends (the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, reminded me that it was 25, but that is still, I think, relatively few) paid a larger subscription than was to be paid by any other member, in this way ensuring that he retained control of the club, however large its membership became.

I was worried about the earlier part, because I have great sympathy with my noble friend's idea about Service members. I have not so much sympathy about "temporary", because that is a well-known method of getting round the true position of a club. But with regard to "service", I take it that what my noble friend has in mind is that "service members" may be intended to refer to Servicemen who are allowed to pay a reduced subscription because they are stationed at a distance from the club, and so can use the premises only infrequently. If this is so, the Government Amendment on country members would cover that, so they are all right.

But then there is the other case—and I think this is more likely—to cover the case of a club which offers Servicemen stationed nearby non-voting membership at a reduced subscription. That is what worried me, but it has not proved possible to relax the requirements of the Bill to allow this practice to continue. The club will still be able to offer hospitality to the Serviceman, either by making him a voting member or by making provision in the rules for sales to Servicemen stationed in the neighbourhood. It is true that sales are subject to the veto of the court, but this is a necessary safeguard and there is no reason to think that it will be used unreasonably. I feel there is a real danger here, against which I am trying to provide, and I think my noble friend's Amendment would not only breach the walls but undermine them. Therefore, I must tell him that I am sorry I cannot accept his Amendment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I thank my noble and learned friend for his explanation. I see that it may weld be that this Amendment goes too far. I wonder, however, whether my noble and learned friend could tell me what sort of effect the inclusion of some such rules as I have outlined in this Amendment in the case of a perfectly bona fide golf club would have when they come to registration or renewal. Would the provisions of Clause 22 make it much more difficult for them if they put in this sort of rule?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As I understand it, they would be acting contrary to paragraph 2 (4) of the Schedule, and by doing so they would be in danger. But on the question which I think my noble friend has in mind, about visiting members to golf clubs, perhaps he would consider putting that down on Report and we might have a discussion on that. I do not want to be unreasonable in the matter, and I know that instead of paying a green fee, at certain golf clubs they make you a member for the day. I think that is a practical point of life which we should like to consider from a practical point of view. If my noble friend would put down an Amendment on Report I would consider it. I am always anxious to be reasonable in the matter without breaching fundamental rules. Perhaps that would suit him.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I thank my noble and learned friend.

LORD AIREDALE

I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount would consider again the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, so far as it relates to overseas members? It seems that in paragraph (4) of the Schedule voting is to be in the hands of members who are entitled to use the club premises. I believe it to be the case that in many clubs members who are overseas, and who pay a reduced subscription, are not entitled to use the club premises. I think that is a rule in the case of the club to which I have the honour to belong, and I have no doubt that it applies in many other cases, too. If the overseas member returns home and wants to use the club premises, he has to pay an increased subscription before he may use the premises. I really do not see why an overseas member who is not paying the full subscription, and who is not entitled to use the club premises, should be entitled to vote, because that would seem to run counter to the principles stated in paragraph (4) of the Schedule.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think that would broadly be covered by the provision as to country members. May I look into it again? I think I have got it right, but I will certainly look through it again.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I thank my noble and learned friend for his undertaking to look at this again, and I will try to make some further Amendments in the Report stage in rather narrower terms, in order to cover this subject. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Sixth Schedule [Requirements to be complied with by club's application for registration certificate]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to paragraph 2: or will be so qualified if, as regards any provision of the rules specified in the application, the court sees fit to give a direction under subsection (14) of that section. The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is really consequential on Amendment 38, but may I just spend a moment on it, in answer to a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale? These Amendments, Nos. 38 and 67, provide for the country membership. Many clubs have rules which provide that persons living more than a specified distance from the club may become members of the club at a reduced subscription—the same principle as he put to me—and it is impossible to define country members in such a way that the Amendment would take the form of a simple addition to the classes mentioned in the proviso to paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (4); and there is the difficulty which I mentioned. But these Amendments, Nos. 38 and 67, give the magistrates' court the power to investigate the arrangements and to refuse to register a club unless they are satisfied that the non-voting country membership rule is part of a bona fide arrangement made in the interests of the club as a whole and by that class of members, and is not designed to receive for a minority of the members an unfair measure of control. Clearly, the case which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, put to me would fall within that definition. It is a perfectly honest and honourable idea providing for people who see the club only occasionally. Therefore, I think it will help him, but it does not mean that I will not look at his point again carefully.

Amendment moved— Page 61, line 20, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD AIREDALE

I am much obliged. I still think that there is a distinction here. The country member usually pays a lower subscription because he can use the club premises less often; but he may use the club premises and I suppose that he would be entitled to vote under paragraph 4. The overseas member cannot use the club premises: there is, therefore, that distinction. I think it still applies.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move Amendment No. 68.

Amendment moved— Page 62, line 29, at end insert ("annexed").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I must have been misinterpreting this, because I understood that the noble Lord's questions were on the previous Amendment. If that was not so then they were quite foreign to my intelligence. But do I take it that we have now passed No. 67?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

It seems to me that we are all not so well qualified. If you have passed it, I do not want you to look at it again, but at any rate I am not satisfied.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think the noble Viscount will see, when he has considered it, that this is permissible only if the court says that it is part of a genuine scheme. The club cannot do it itself. It must be approved by the court. I am sorry if I took it a little shortly, because I was really trying to get to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised. But I really do not think that the noble Viscount will find there is anything to worry him. If he does, perhaps he will have a word with me, because I can genuinely assure him that, in my view, this does not break into the general rule which I am trying to clear.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I would just add a note that I was trying to connect the place it would go into paragraph 2 of the Schedule, and I was taking the two together. I shall not be satisfied until I have had that word with the noble and learned Viscount.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Seventh Schedule:

Procedure for Registartion of Clubs, and related matters

(2) On any application or complaint made to a magistrates' court by or against a club under Part III of this Act, and on any appeal by a club under section twenty-six of this Act, the club if not represented by counsel or a solicitor shall be heard by the chairman or secretary.

LORD BURDEN moved, in paragraph 3 (1), to leave out "twenty-one" and insert "twenty-eight" [days]. The noble Lord said: Paragraph (2) of the Seventh Schedule deals with application for the registration of a club which is to be made to the clerk to the justices and the clerk is required to submit copies forthwith Ito the police and local authority. Any objection must be made within 21 days, and Those of your Lordships who have had experience of local authorities will know that, bearing in mind the meeting of the appropriate committee of the council, 21 days is not a long period and should there be any delay on the part of the clerk to the justices in transmitting copies to the local authorities there may be difficulties regarding the making of an objection.

I am sure it is not the desire of the noble and learned Viscount that local authorities should be put to the inconvenience of calling a special meeting of the appropriate committee of the council to deal with any objections which it is felt necessary to make. Therefore my Amendment seeks to substitute a period of 28 days for 21, and even 28 is running the thing rather tight for many local authorities. I believe I am correct in saying that 21 days follows the Scottish precedent, but there does not seem to be any particular reason for saying that because there are 21 days for Scotland there should be 21 days in this country. Very strong representations have been made by the people concerned, and I would ask the Lord Chancellor to look favourably on this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 9, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("twenty-eight").—(Lord Burden.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Plainly, local authorities must be given reasonable time in which to decide whether or not to lodge an objection. I accept that. It is rather difficult, as the noble Lord shows that he appreciates, that an applicant for a justices' licence is required to give no more than 21 days' notice to a local authority of his intention—that is in the Fourth Schedule, paragraph 1 (2). As the noble Lord said, Scottish licence law requires an objection to the granting of a renewal of a club's registration certificate to be lodged with the local authority within 21 days of receipt of notice of the application. Of course, as a Scot I appreciate the compliment of the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that in Scotland we get up very early in the morning and may not require as much time as the nation that lies some 200 miles to the South. Still it is a precedent; and, of course, the 21 days' notice only is required in the case of an application for a new licence for a hotel or restaurant or public house.

May I leave it this way? The noble Lord, Lord Burden, with his immense experience of these matters, tells me that it might be difficult to lodge objections within the 21 days. I should like to make some inquiries, because I want to hold the balance fairly between the parties who are affected. So may I leave it to-day that I will look sympathetically at the noble Lord's suggestion? I know the Association of Municipal Corporations very well and that they would not put it forward unless they were worried about some of their authorities. If I may give it sympathetic consideration, I will write to the noble Lord about it before Report stage.

LORD BURDEN

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL BATHURST

Amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72 are technical Amendments which allow a fire authority to object if the local magistrates or licensing justices should extend the time of objection, rather on the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Burden, mentioned with regard to local authorities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 13, at end insert (",fire authority").—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL BATHURST

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 16, leave out ("local").—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL BATHURST

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("and").—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment provides that on the hearing of an application by a club for the issue, variation or renewal of a registration certificate, a magistrates' court shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses. I think your Lordships agree that is a reasonable power. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 22, at end insert ("and in relation to any such application subsections (1) and (3) of section seventy-seven of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952 (which provide for compelling the attendance of witnesses), shall apply as they apply in relation to a complaint.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Eighth Schedule agreed to.

Ninth Schedule [Repeals]:

9.58 p.m.

EARL BATHURST

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 73, line 48, column 3, leave out ("subsections (2) and (3)"), and insert ("subsection (2) and, except as respects the regrant of licences granted before the coming into force of this repeal, subsection (3).")—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 75, line 41, column 3, after ("nineteen") insert ("paragraph (a) of subsection (1) and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL BATHURST

This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 75, line 50, column 3, leave out from the beginning to end of line 51 and insert— ("In section one hundred and twenty-seven, in subsection (1), the word 'justices". Sections one hundred and twenty-eight and one hundred and twenty-nine."). —(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is the last Amendment. It is consequential and would not merit further words, but I should like to thank noble Lords opposite, and everyone in the House, for their cooperation. I do not think that we have skimped or scamped our consideration tonight, yet noble Lords have co-operated in securing the end of the stage by an almost mathematical exactness which is hardly ever known in the annals of Parliament. But for that, and for all their kindness, I should like to thank them very much. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 76, line 41, at end insert—

("4 & 5 Eliz. 2. c. 42. The Occasional Licences and Young Persons Act, 1956. The whole Act.")
—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STONHAM

May I be allowed to thank the Lord Chancellor very much for his kind words, and also to thank him, together with his noble friends Lord Bathurst and Lord Brecon, for their kind consideration of all our Amendments and for their courtesy. I think that noble Lords on both sides may congratulate ourselves in that we have finished much earlier than we thought might be the case.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.