HC Deb 24 September 1909 vol 11 cc896-900

(1) All payments made in pursuance of conditions attached by licensing justices to the grant of new on-licences under Section four of the Licensing Act, 1904, shall, notwithstanding anything in that or any other Act, be paid into the Exchequer.

(2) On any proceedings relating to the grant or confirmation of a new on-licence, to which Section four of the Licensing Act, 1904, applies, any person authorised by the Commissioners shall be entitled to be heard by the justices or confirming authority on the question of the conditions to be attached to the licence for the purpose of securing monopoly value to the public.

Mr. G. D. FABER moved to leave out Sub-section (2).

This, so far as I am aware, introduces a new element, and the greedy hand of the Commissioners or the greedy hand of the Treasury where local magistrates used to be supreme. When the Bill of 1904 was before the House the question of monopoly value was under discussion. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then sitting on one of the benches below the Gangway on this side, introduced an Amendment providing that before any licence was granted on the terms of monopoly value that the local authority should be entitled to be heard in the matter. That, I believe, introduced a new principle of the local body being heard. The Amendment was defeated. This is something very different. It seems to me that there were some grounds for the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. It was that the local authority, who were vitally interested in the matter of new licences, should be entitled to be heard before a new licence was granted. Here the Treasury are interested in the amount that will be paid for monopoly value; but they are not otherwise interested. I am inclined to think, if the Treasury are given a locus standi to attend the hearing, it may lead to pressure being put on the magistrates by the Treasury. Their officer will be there for one thing only, to get as high a sum for the monopoly value as he possibly can. You are, under this Bill, changing the old practice, and the monopoly value is to be paid in future into the Treasury. It may not be altogether in the interest of the locality that a high sum should be had for monoply value, because other considerations come in. It may not be altogether a question of monopoly payment. I am inclined to think it would have been better not to put this actually into the Bill. I suppose the magistrates would be entitled to hear an officer representing the Treasury in the matter. Now you propose to authorise that the Commissioners shall be entitled to be heard by the justices. I think that is not desirable. Perhaps the Chancellor may be able to alter our minds and have the goodness to give a specific reply. What the Sub-section proposes to do is to authorise certain changes in the procedure set up by the Licensing Act, 1904, on the question of monopoly value. In the title of the Bill there is nothing about altering the Act of 1904, and I submit that no authority has been given by the House to bring in a Bill altering the procedure laid down under that Act.

The CHAIRMAN

The question put to me is one of considerable difficulty, and I have had no notice of it. I do not think it would be within the scope of the Bill were it not that in Clause 33 there are provisions dealing with the new financial relations between the Treasury and the local authority in regard to these licences. On that consideration I think the Subsection is certainly within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I think the hon. Member (Mr. G. D. Faber) has somewhat exaggerated the importance of this provision. All it means is that the Excise officer will be entitled to appear to give his view as to the real value of the monopoly. Now that it is transferred from the local authority it becomes part of the revenue business of the local revenue officer, and it is only right that he should appear. That is not a very serious matter. It is very different from my proposal in 1904, which I am glad to see, after a lapse of five years, the hon. Member thinks was a reasonable one.

Mr. G. D. FABER

There is more in it than I thought at the time.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

That proposed to authorise the local authority to appear to oppose the licence generally. The function of the Excise officer here will be confined to this matter. I think it will be desirable from the magistrates' point of view that the Revenue officer should have power to appear and give his opinion as to the value of the monopoly granted, and it is essential that it should be done now that it is part of the Revenue business.

Sir E. CARSON

Will he be able to call witnesses?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Only on conditions.

Sir E. CARSON

He will be in the same position as any other litigant.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Not quite. For instance, if he came to the conclusion that the opinion of a certain authority would carry weight with the magistrates, he might employ a valuer to give evidence as to the value of the monopoly in a particular locality. He is not there to oppose. The officer is simply there to give his testimony and to help the magistrates to form an opinion as to what the value of the new licence should be. I think that is a very desirable thing.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

If it is a question of somebody representing the Commissioners, to be there to speak as to value and to help the magistrates, I will not quarrel with the decision of the Chancellor. But the Sub-section is not drawn in that way. My hon. and learned Friend tells me that the effect of the Sub-section is that it really gives the agent of the Commissioners a right to appeal against the decisions of the magistrates.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

On value.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

On value. This is a great deal more than giving a person representing the Commissioners a right to be heard on that. To give this power is to make the Commissioners or their representatives a party.

Sir E. CARSON

On confirmation you can vary the conditions.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

We ought to have a Law Officer here. This is rather a lawyer's question. I think there seems to be a little difference of opinion by the Government as to their intentions. I understand the Chancellor to say to me a few moments ago that there was no appeal, and that it was intended that there should be one.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

There is no appeal in the ordinary sense, but a confirmation. That is not an appeal. If the magisterial procedure is as it used to be, I think the local Excise officer has some right to appear. I am quite willing to assent to any words to confine the functions of the officer merely to the fiscal part—that is to say, to see that the revenue does not suffer. It is not his business to express an opinion as to whether or not a licence should or should not be granted. That would mean an Amendment of the general law. That is not intended.

Mr. GRETTON

An examination of the Sub-section suggests to me that under it an expert officer of the Treasury would have more than power to go down and assure himself that the amount to be charged for the new licence is a fair one and a proper contribution to the revenue.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

That is all that is intended.

Mr. GRETTON

The Sub-section says can send out "any person." The Government should give more definitely what is intended. There are other experts on this matter. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman decided to nominate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) or the hon. Member for Westmoreland (Mr. Leif Jones) as representatives? These things want defining. The Sub-section should express what the Government means. I have had some experience in these matters, and know how many difficult questions arise. The words set out here do appear to me to raise a very serious difficulty, and complicate the intentions of the Government in a way they have repudiated. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is able to give us some assurance that he will amend the Sub-section in the direction he has explained, we shall have no alternative but to divide against the Sub-section and to raise the matter again on Report.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

If it is at all necessary to make clearer what I have explained is the intention of the Clause, I shall consult the draftsman and do so. The business of the Revenue officer who will go down will be purely financial. If particular words are necessary for that purpose I shall be very glad to put them in.

Sir E. CARSON

The right hon. Gentleman says the Inland Revenue officer shall have nothing to say to anything except the money matters.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

He shall have only to do with what effects the revenue.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.