Legislative Reform (Supervision of Alcohol Sales in Church and Village Halls &c.) Order 2009

The order amends the Licensing Act 2003 to allow licensing authorities in some circumstances to include an alternative licence condition relating to the supervision of alcohol sales in community premises, including church and village halls. I pay tribute to the work that members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have done in considering the order, which has at its heart a desire to ease the administrative burden on community premises that make such an important contribution to life in our communities, and I know that there is cross-party support; I hope that I am not presuming too much. I also thank organisations such as Action with Communities in Rural England, Community Matters, and the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services, which have been working closely with my department and whose input into the development of this order has been extremely valuable. The proposal aims to remove the legislative burden of Section 19 of the Licensing Act 2003 on village halls and community premises. This section currently provides that where a premises licence authorises the supply of alcohol, the licence must include two mandatory conditions. The first condition is that no supply of alcohol may be made under a premises licence when there is no designated premises supervisor—sometimes known as the DPS—in respect of the premises licence, when the DPS does not hold a personal licence, or when their personal licence has been suspended. The second condition is that every supply of alcohol under the premises licence must be made or authorised by a person who holds a personal licence. I hope that this is not a contentious matter. It is simply a reduction in red tape, and I hope that the Committee will support it. The order will allow community premises, such as church halls and village halls with properly constituted management committees or management structures, to apply to replace the existing mandatory conditions with a simpler and cheaper arrangement. There will be a fee of £23 for considering applications. The responsibility for alcohol sales will lie with the management committee as the premises licence holder. This is very similar to the existing arrangement for non-profit-making members’ clubs, such as the Royal British Legion or a political club, through which responsibility is collective rather than through a nominated individual. To ensure that there are sufficient safeguards, the licensing authority will be required to take into account any representations from the police. In addition, should problems occur, the mandatory conditions can always be re-imposed by the licensing authority following a review of the premises licence. The order has been proposed because surveys indicate that although 90 per cent of village halls have premises licences, the majority of these are limited to the provision of regulated entertainment and do not cover alcohol. That limits the ability of the village hall to host the full range of activities for the community, including fundraising events, local theatre and social functions. The main reason why many halls have not applied for the full licence relates to the understandable reluctance on the part of volunteers to become a personal licence holder with individual responsibility for authorising the sale of alcohol. That requires paying for a personal licence, a Criminal Records Bureau check, obtaining a necessary qualification and taking time off work for training. Individual volunteers also tend to be anxious about being made the designated premises supervisor, which places a good deal of responsibility on one person’s shoulders. The total cost of gaining a personal licence is estimated to be approximately £273. We estimate that the overall potential savings under this proposal would be £202,678 per year. It is not a huge sum of money—this is not a hugely significant order, but it removes red tape that will make a difference to volunteers on hard-working village hall committees. I am delighted that the Delegated Powers Committee recognises the merits of this order and has made no recommendation other than that it should be considered under the affirmative procedure. While we initially recommended that the order follow the negative resolution process, we accept that the number of premises involved and the interest in licensing matters mean that the level of parliamentary scrutiny should be high. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.