§ (1) The licensing justices for any licensing district may, if they think that it is desirable in any area temporarily to restrict the sale, consumption, and supply of intoxicating liquor, by order direct that the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor on the premises of any persona holding any retailer's licence in the area, and the supply or consumption of intoxicating liquor in any registered club in the area, shall be suspended while the order is in operation, during such hours and subject to such conditions or exceptions (if any) as may be specified in the order:
§ Provided that if any such order suspends the sale, supply, or consumption of intoxicating liquor at an hour earlier than nine at night, the order shall not remain in force for more than fourteen days except with the approval of the Secretary of State.
§ (2) If any person acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any order under 297 this Section he shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and the Court may order, if the person convicted is the holder of a retailer's licence, that the licence be forfeited, and, if the offence is committed in relation to or in connection with the supply of intoxicating liquor in a club, that the club be struck off the register without any special complaint having been made for the purpose.
§ (3) The licensing justices shall have power to make an order under this Section at their general annual licensing meeting or at any special Sessions held by them for the purpose of their duties under the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910, or at any meeting specially called for the purpose under this Act.
§ The clerk to the licensing justices shall specially call such a meeting if an application in writing is made to him for the purpose either by any two of their number or by the chief officer of police for the district.
§ (4) In the application of this Section to any licensing district or any part of a licensing district which is situate in the Metropolitan Police district, the Commissioner of Police, acting with the approval of the Secretary of State, shall be substituted for the licensing justices.
§ Mr. GRETTONBefore I proceed to move the Amendment of which I have given notice I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he proposes to accept two Amendments which appear on the Paper, as if he does I do not think I should be inclined to argue, my Amendment?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)I propose to accept the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Toxteth (Mr. Marshall Hall) which proposes in Clause 1 (1) to leave out the words "think that it is desirable in any area temporarily to restrict the sale, consumption, and supply of intoxicating liquor," and to insert the words "fit, upon the recommendation of the Chief Officer of Police that it is desirable for the maintenance of order or the suppression of drunkenness in any area." I propose also to accept the further Amendment in the name of the same hon. 298 and learned Gentleman, which proposes in Clause 1 (2) to leave out the words "and the Court may order, if the person convicted is the holder of a retailer's licence, that the licence be forfeited, and, if the offence is committed in relation to or in connection with the supply of intoxicating liquor in a club, that the club be struck off the register without any special complaint having been made for the purpose," and to insert the words "if any person feels aggrieved by a conviction under this Section, he may appeal therefrom to Quarter Sessions in accordance with the Summary Jurisdiction Acts." I propose also to accept the consequential Amendments in the name of that hon. and learned Gentleman and also in the name of the hon. Member for St. Paneras (Captain Jessel). I propose also to move an Amendment myself, which is not upon the Paper, to the proviso at line fifteen.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYWould the right hon. Gentleman state the general effect of the changes he proposes to make?
§ Mr. McKENNAYes, I will do so.
The CHAIRMANI can see that there will be a little discussion, and as there is no Motion before the House the best course to adopt is for the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton) to move his Amendment formally, and I will then allow the discussion to take place.
§ Mr. GRETTONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "licensing justices for any licensing district," and insert instead thereof the words "police authority."
§ Mr. McKENNAI propose to move an Amendment to the proviso, which will then run as follows:—
"Provided that if any such Order suspends the sale, supply or consumption of intoxicating liquor at an hour earlier than nine at night, the Order shall not have effect until approved by the Secretary of State."
The effect of those Amendments will be as follows: No change can be made in the existing law unless first the licensing authority think fit, and secondly, the police authority recommend that change should be made on the grounds of the maintenance of order or the suppression 299 of drunkenness. Those two conditions must coincide before there can be any shortening of hours during which intoxicating liquor can be sold. If the licensing justices should think fit to make an Order upon the recommendation of the police authority, and if that Order were to the effect that the licensed premises should be closed at an earlier hour than nine o'clock, it could not come into effect until it had been approved of by the Secretary of State. The Order to close at an earlier hour than nine o'clock for any period will not have effect until it is approved of by the Secretary of State. I listened to the discussion yesterday, and I have endeavoured, earnestly endeavoured, to meet all the objections raised. It seems to me that by these Amendments I have covered the whole ground with the single exception of the objection raised by the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy). He asked that the Act shall not be put into operation except at the request of the military and naval authorities. The matter has been discussed and carefully considered. The conclusion we came to was that it would be undesirable to put the onus upon the military and naval authorities in every case before the Act was brought into operation, and that it would be sufficient to say that the Bill is introduced and will be pressed upon the House at the request of the naval and military authorities. Therefore, I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not ask us to include in the Bill itself a provision throwing the onus upon the military and naval authorities.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY(indistinctly heard): I quite agree that in an enormous place like London there may be a case for what is now proposed, but when you come to other places the circumstances are different. It must be remembered that in Ireland half of these public-houses are premises where the public-house business is only a very small part of the whole, the other part consisting of the sale of ordinary goods, not merely groceries, but other articles of that kind. I do not for a moment believe that this measure will be used harshly, but at the same time, when dealing with a tremendous interest of this kind, all the circumstances should be taken into account. Everybody will 300 agree that we ought not to use a great emergency of this kind for enforcing mere temperance. It should be something connected with the national emergency. The temptation would be great in some respects. It would certainly ease police duties to close the public-houses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is what I call a general temperance cheer. But we are not dealing with this Bill as temperance men; we are dealing with it as patriots. If you leave the matter to the police alone there will be a temptation to close many of these public-houses. I do not say that they would do it simply to lighten their duties, but at any rate there would be the feeling that if they made a mistake, it would be on the right side. The military or the naval man is not thinking of these things; he is thinking of warlike operations and how those operations are affected by the opening or closing of public-houses. Even though it is not put into the Bill, if there is a statement by the Government that the police will only act in these matters in consultation with the military authorities, I will not press the point. Take the county of Cork. Without any Act of Parliament you shut up two public-houses there. In the "same way, I suppose, it might be done elsewhere. The House should not run away with the idea of giving the Government everything they want because we are in the middle of a great emergency without considering the consequences. I say this simply in the interests of ordinary freedom.
1.0 P.M.
I suggest that the Government should give an assurance that the police shall not take action until they have consulted the military authorities and obtained some sort of written document. I do not care how it is put. We ought to have an opportunity of discussing the matter later on; and what a protection it would be to the right hon. Gentleman to be able to say that the police did not take any action until there was a military minute requesting them to do so! The Government may say that this is not a military and naval necessity Bill at all, but that it is necessary because of the social conditions brought about by the War. We should then be on a wholly different plane. But I am discussing the Bill in the shape in which it 301 was presented. Therefore I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman for his own protection should promise that the military authorities will be consulted. Do not give anybody or any class a grievance or feeling of grievance. You want to carry the public with you. The publicans will be paying heavy Licence Duties; they have been open to attack; they will have to bear a large part of the burden of the War. There will be no moratorium for their taxes; they will get no concessions when licensing day comes round. Therefore I think we ought not to give a class, who are already smarting under what they think to be an excessive amount of taxation, the possibility of saying, "We have to pay the heaviest share of taxation, and, without any military necessity which we can see, our places have been closed." In the interests of the Home Office itself, and to prevent the censures for needless closing which may be visited upon them, I suggest that this undertaking should be given.
§ Mr. WALTER LONGI think we may say generally that the Home Secretary has done his best to meet in a fair-minded manner the general criticisms put forward with regard to this Bill. As I have no connection even of the most remote kind with the whole trade especially affected, I may be allowed to express the hope that some recognition will be made in the future of the public-spirited manner in which they have accepted what is inevitably a very serious change in the conditions of their business for the time being. The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) has not said one word more than is really true in stating the conditions of the tenants of these premises. They will be called upon to bear a very large share of the extra taxation; they will be called upon to undergo a great deal of personal inconvenience; they will have to bear in an exceptional way the ordinary risks of their trade at a time when their responsibilities will be even greater than they are in peace time. Therefore that tribute is due to them for their readiness, within certain limitations, to accept special legislation. But I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken that it is most important, however full we realise the gravity of the situation, and however anxious we in this 302 House may be to deal with it in an efficient way, that we should avoid anything in the shape of panic legislation. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very pertinent suggestion to the Government. It is that there ought to be some additional precaution. I entirely agree with him as to the necessity for every possible reasonable precaution before this Bill is put into force.
My only difference of opinion with him is as to the methods which he suggests. I had some experience, and no doubt, too, many other hon. Members have had, of soldiers and sailors when in command of certain districts. We know at this moment that the greatest possible strain is being laid upon both of the great Services of the country to find men to fill the various subordinate posts that have to be occupied all over the country. Where there was one soldier or sailor in a local district in the happier proceeding days, at this moment of national trial there are soldiers and sailors in responsible positions all over the country. Many of them are men who have been suddenly called to fill these positions. The hon. and learned Gentleman said with perfect truth that it obviously would be in the interests of the police and would simplify their duties if they thought there was the least temptation to ill-doing in the place. But if that is true of the police, I venture to say, speaking with some experience, that it is ten times more true of soldiers and sailors. I honestly believe that what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests as a precaution would, on the contrary, be in practice a greater risk to the occupants of these houses than would be the case as the matter now stands. The police are interested in the maintenance of law and order, the prevention of riots, and so on. Let the Committee remember that the police are local officials, that they are subject to local opinion, and that they will be in the districts long after the time of stress has passed. If they act unwisely, and, still more, if they act unjustly, public opinion will make itself felt upon them in the future. That does not apply to a naval or a military officer. He is there to-day, and will, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, be gone when these times of stress are over.
303 Further than that, the police look at these matters from the abstract point of view; really of men who are charged with the maintenance of law and order, and who look upon the people as either strong or weak. They have neither admiration for the one, nor contempt for the other, but treat them as people whom they have to keep in order, and they will only act when they think there are so many who are likely to cause trouble. That is not so with the sailors and soldiers. Let the hon. and learned Member for Cork remember that the officer in command of the district is in a different position altogether. He feels that his honour, the honour of his cloth and the honour of his force is in the keeping of every man who is wearing the uniform for the time being in the district over which he presides. Naturally, he will be inclined to look at it from the point of view of minimising temptation, in order that it may be easier for them to avoid failure, and avoid bringing the King's uniform into discredit. If I thought that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman would really be a safeguard against hasty, ill-considered, or the unjust application of this Bill, I would vote for it, but I am honestly afraid that if you were to make the action of the local authorities, or of the police, dependent upon the soldiers or sailors, you would not be taking greater precaution, but running additional risks.
In some places the difficulty, apart from these other considerations, would be the practical one. There would be no naval or military person able to give advice drawn from or based upon actual local knowledge, and the advice of the nearest one being probably a long way from the scene of action, would be difficult to apply. I believe the change which the Home Secretary has made is a very wise one. He has thrown the initiation upon the police, who are responsible for law and order. He has made it the duty of the licensing authority to act upon the advice of the police. He has done something more upon which I personally congratulate him. He has taken upon the Home Office, of which he is head, full responsibility in case of undue use being made of these powers and the ordinary privileges of the people being unfairly limited. I am bound to say that 304 I think that this Bill as now amended is a great improvement on the Bill in its original form. I think it is better than it would be if the advice of the naval or military authorities were included, and for that reason I shall support the amended Bill as now put before the Committee by the Home Secretary.
§ Mr. GRETTONIt may be for the convenience of the Committee if I frankly say that in a moment I am going to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment which stands to my name. Personally, I think that it is remarkable how small a case has been made out of the necessity for this Bill. The only case put before the House that has any strength of force in it is the case in relation to London. Practically, this Bill, as now presented, is a Bill for dealing with conditions in London. I go further. I believe that the naval and military authorities have full power to deal with cases of disorder in the areas under their control, and there are many such areas, and other military stations are being created. But as this Bill is pressed upon the House I am not going to resist it, for I agree that the Government should have all the support they require, but I think it is very unfortunate that the Home Secretary has not gone a little further in dealing with this matter than he seems inclined to do.
§ Mr. GOULDINGI desire to appeal to you. Mr. Whitley, in respect of other Amendments on the Paper to which the right hon. Gentleman, in his conciliatory speech, has not referred. I would like to know what the right hon. Gentleman is inclined to do in regard to them. This is really very drastic legislation. It undoubtedly savours of class legislation. Nothing is done in regard to grocers' licences. I am bound to say that the only reason and justification for such action as this is that otherwise the military and naval programme of the country would be interfered with, and that it will prevent disorder or drunkenness. No one for a Moment is going to say that in a vast lumber of public-houses throughout the country drunkenness or disorder is likely to arise, and it is certainly right that we should see that reasonable power is preserved to the working-classes to get their 305 refreshments, both during their dinner hour, when their work is done, and before they return to work.
The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member himself has an Amendment down on that question. I think he had better wait and move it, as he will be entitled to do.
§ Mr. GOULDINGThe right hon. Gentleman opposite has, so as to save Debate and discussion, stated the general line he is going to adopt, and I thought—and that is why I have spoken—that the right hon. Gentleman might be prepared to say how he would treat the Amendment of my hon. Friend for Devizes in regard to preserving certain hours to the working classes.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. MARSHALL HALLI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "licensing" ["The licensing justices for any"].
I freely recognise the necessity for the provisions which the Home Secretary is making, and after his statement that it is in the interest of the military and naval authorities that some such powers should be taken, I am not going to oppose the conferring of such powers. I do not think the Home Secretary appreciates the point I made with regard to the authority in which the power is to be ultimately vested If the Home Secretary is prepared to make this a Police Bill, well and good, but for some reason which I do not understand he brings in the licensing authority. I do not understand why the licensing authority is brought into this bill at all. It is not a Licensing Bill. It is a Bill for the prevention of disorder and for the assistance of the naval and military authorities. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to put upon the face of the Bill that it is specially for the naval and military authorities, because that might be casting a slur; but I want to know why a second authority is brought in. If the police in particular districts are prepared to say they need this power they could have it subject to any drastic measure which should have the approval of the Secretary of State. What, therefore, is the necessity for interposing the licensing authority at all? After an experience of something over thirty years of the licensing authorities, I say 306 that, speaking for myself, I have the greatest distrust of the licensing authorities in this country. I have the greatest confidence in the police, and after thirty years' experience of the working of the licensing laws, there is no man I distrust more than the fanatical teetotaller. I distrust him very much, and when we know that the licensing authority is constituted to the exclusion of all persons who may be in any way connected with the sale of liquor, even railway directors, and that they are disqualified, although magistrates for their district, from sitting upon the licensing authority.
I say that it is an invidious position to-appoint a licensing authority as the arbiter whether this Act should be put in force or not. I put this as a serious point, because it lends colour—though I honestly accept from the Home Secretary it is not the fact—to the suggestion going about all over the country that this Bill is really suggested to him by the extreme fanatical temperance party. I know it is not so, but when we get circular after circular from exactly the same class of people who approach us when a temperance Bill is before the House to support this Bill, we cannot get away from the conclusion that hereafter some attempt will be made by the temperance party to take advantage of the concession made in the interests of the military and navy at such a time as this. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a second control over the police, let him appoint the whole of the justices for the division which includes the whole of the authority he suggests, because, after all, the licensing authority is only a committee. I ask the Home Secretary to accept this and the subsequent Amendments in my name, and the effect of it will be that the Clause will read, "The justices of the peace for every Petty Sessional Division"—that is to say, the whole body which includes the lesser will have the discretionary power of controlling the police. We should be perfectly content if left to the police alone. I ask the Home Secretary, in the real interests of public opinion, to accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. McKENNAPerhaps I may be wrong, but I cannot help thinking that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not 307 done justice to the Bill as it will stand when amended by the Amendment in his name which I promised to accept. The only function that the licensing justices will themselves be able to exercise will be a restrictive function as against the police. The power of limiting the sale of intoxicating liquors will not rest with them at all. They can only restrain the sale when advised by the police to do so, and the only independent power they will have will be to refuse to act upon the advice of the police. Consequently, their sole independent power under the Clause as it will stand will be to leave the closing hours exactly as they are now. If they want to restrict the sale, they can only act upon the advice of the police. They are not the arbiters, or they are only arbiters in this sense, that they are arbiters in the power of determining that there should be no change.
§ Mr. McKENNAIf the hon. Gentleman is under the impression that the licensing justices would act unfairly in this matter, I would point out that their independent discretion can only be exercised to leave the law as it stands. Therefore, they have no power to exercise an unfair discretion in the way in which he fears unless on the recommendation of the police.
§ Mr. WILLIAM WATSONWill the right hon. Gentleman state that under his Amendment the licensing justices would be bound by the hours of restriction suggested by the police?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe point is a perfectly sound one, and it is in order to prevent any capricious action by the justices, who will be able to exercise the power of limiting the hours of sale on the recommendation of the police, that I propose a proviso that no order by the justices shall have effect at all to restrict the sale before the hour of nine o'clock unless approved by the Secretary of State. I quite agree that if the recommendation of the police is obtained, and if the police made the recommendation without any restriction as to hours, the justices then would have freedom.
§ Mr. W. WATSONBut not otherwise.
§ Mr. McKENNAYes, but that freedom is limited by the proviso. It must not be supposed that in these matters of local government the police and the local power are in any hostility to each other. They act in conjunction, and the police would not make the recommendation if it was going to be capriciously acted upon by the justices, and to make doubly sure we have a proviso that no capricious order shall have effect unless approved of by the Secretary of State. If the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member were accepted, the only difference would be that the restricted discretion upon the recommendation of the police would be in the hands of the general body of magistrates, instead of that particular body of magistrates whose time and attention have been directly devoted to the consideration of licensing questions. I could not agree to the substitution of the general body of magistrates for the licensing magistrates. If the licensing magistrates at all costs are to be left out, I could only agree on the terms that the discretion was left in the hands of the police.
§ Mr. McKENNABut how would that affect you? If it is in the hands of the police, they can act upon their own initiative.
Mr. MARSHALL HALLI have so much distrust of the licensing body that I would rather leave it to the police.
§ Mr. McKENNAThat confirms my conjecture that the hon. and learned Member has not appreciated the effect of his own Amendment. The only effect of that would be that the police could act in every case without the limiting control which the justices might exercise. The hon. and learned Member is afraid that the justices in some instances might be too willing to act, but surely he must know also that there might be circumstances in which the police might be too willing to act.
§ Mr. McKENNAI quite congratulate the hon. and learned Member upon that.
Mr. MARSHALL HALLThe point turns upon the question as to how the police make a report. They may suggest that certain houses should be closed, but the time is left entirety to this tribunal.
§ Mr. McKENNAThat is subject to the proviso. You may like the hour to be nine o'clock, or you may think that they ought to have a discretion. On the other hand, you may want to extend this provision and give a bigger discretion to the Home Secretary, but I cannot understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman should object to the licensing justices, whose sole function is that of limiting the power of closing the public-houses. I hope in these circumstances the hon. and learned Gentleman, having regard to the fact that these Amendments have been introduced with a view to producing that agreement—I thought I had obtained an agreement—will be satisfied with the Amendments I have accepted, and not press his point any further.
§ Mr. RIGBY SWIFTThe Amendment provides that in the county boroughs, which are the only licensing body affected by this Amendment, the same power shall be given to the whole body of magistrates as is given to them in all other licensing districts. An hon. Member suggested that I was wrong when I said it only affected county boroughs. Under the Licensing Act, licensing justices for county boroughs are the licensing committee. In boroughs which are not counties they are the whole body of licensing justices for everything except certain specified purposes, and in county divisions they are again the whole body of justices. The consequence is that the whole body of justices will deal with these matters in boroughs which are not county boroughs in county divisions, but in county boroughs it will only be dealt with by the licensing committee. Now that body is a committee of the whole body of magistrates appointed for quite a different purpose than the exercise of any powers under this Bill. When these gentlemen elected their colleagues as members of the committee at the last annual meeting it was never contemplated that any such power as is being conferred by this Bill was ever going to be conferred upon any body of magistrates. Is it right for the other justices who are not on the 310 licensing committee to say, "We think that we ought to have a voice in settling this matter, and we who have been appointed justices for the purposes of preserving the peace should be allowed to say whether we think the powers under this Act ought to be exercised or not"? The Amendment which my hon. and learned Friend has proposed merely gives to the justices in county boroughs—and possibly to some disqualified justices in other boroughs, but they must be very few—the right to have a voice in the administration of an Act of Parliament which is being passed in an emergency of this kind to preserve the peace, and I think it is a voice which they have a right to have, and which they never intended to delegate to anybody else. I think those gentlemen who have been commissioned to preserve the peace in any district ought not to be passed over and deprived of their rights when a measure of this sort is being passed into law.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThe Home Secretary has made an appeal to the House for a smooth passage of this Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot see the hon. Members who sit behind him. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) has left the House, and that gives me considerable relief. When we see all the stalwart teetotallers of the Liberal party sticking like limpets to their seats, and not allowing the Home Secretary to yield an inch— [HON. MEMBERS.: "Oh, oh!"]
§ Mr. McKENNAI can assure the hon. and learned Member that I have not consulted any single hon. Member representing what might be termed the total abstinence party with regard to this Bill. I have not consulted one of them, and I do not think that one of them has spoken to me about it.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESMay I say that I have had absolutely no communication with the Home Office in this matter until after the Bill was put upon the Paper. That is the first time I knew about it.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI am only explaining that when a particular group of men are sticking to this House with a tenacity which they would not otherwise show— [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—then it is a 311 party bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are making it a party Bill!"] I have not made it a party Bill. I have made suggestions which have not been accepted, and I am not going to press them. I want to point out that in Ireland we are better off in this respect than in the ease of this country. We have in Ireland the protection which the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks. We have, furthermore, the fact that in all the large towns the Recorder, who is always a lawyer and a man of judicial discretion, is the sole licensing authority. In country districts there is no such thing as licensing justices. It is the entire body sitting with the County Court judge. We have, therefore, in Ireland, the very protection which the hon. Gentleman seeks for England. I can well imagine what he has in his mind. He has in mind something like this: The chief constable, as a rule, is, we know, very much in touch with the licensing justices, and any advance in his salary may depend upon the good relations which exist between them. The chief constable may be very much in sympathy with the licensing justices, just as the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) is in sympathy with the Home Secretary. Accordingly, my hon. and learned Friend, in a matter which is put forward not on temperance grounds, but on emergency grounds, seeks that the general body of public opinion existing among the magistrates should be consulted. I am very sorry to think that there is good ground for the apprehension that this Bill would be enforced, not upon war grounds, and upon grounds of national emergency, but upon grounds of a very different character. I do feel that there is some apprehension, as the hon. Gentleman opposite has said, that this Debate may become somewhat of a party character, and I would make the suggestion that the Government should agree to make a Return showing the way in which the Bill has been enforced.
§ Mr. McKENNACertainly.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThat will give us some information as to the houses, the districts, and the hours, and when we have that we shall, at all events, have the knowledge of the protection which is 312 necessary. We wish to see that this Bill is not used for the fad or opinion of anybody, but is only used for the general public good.
§ Sir FREDERICK LOWI feel sure that the hon. Member who has just sat down in what he said about temperance advocates, did not intend to include me, although I happened to be sitting behind my right hon. Friend. I want to save all misconception on that subject. Neither in this House nor anywhere else have I ever been an extreme advocate of what is ordinarily called temperance legislation, although many times I have in this House and elsewhere advocated fairness to the licensing trade. The question before us seems to me to be really a very small one. It is a question as to whether the executive in the matter should be the licensing justices or the full number of the justices. If the Clause empowering the justices to forfeit, which I understand is to be removed, had remained in the Bill, then I should have thought that the opposition of the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool (Mr. Marshall Hall) was very substantial, because it would have been manifestly unfair that a body like the licensing justices should have been empowered to inflict such an enormous penalty for a breach of this particular Act of Parliament. That really has been taken out of the Bill, and the question we have to discuss is whether the body which is to be called to the assistance of the police in this particular matter should be the whole body of the justices in county boroughs or in other places the ordinary justices plus the disqualified justices. That is all it amounts to. That-really does seem to me a very small point. I am almost divided in the opinion as to whether on the one hand it is expedient for the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken against this to press it, or on the other hand, whether it is expedient for the Home Secretary to press the Clause in the Bill, but on an occasion like this I would venture to suggest to the House that really the matter is of such comparatively small importance that we might pass from discussing it to discussing other matters which arise on the Bill, and accept for the present purpose and subject to the check that will exist arising from the suggestion 313 of the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) with regard to the return, the proposal in the Bill.
§ Mr. GRETTONI feel myself very largely in agreement with the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down. I do not think this point is so substantial as might appear from the length of time which has been given to it. I venture to suggest, if the Home Secretary wishes to show that this is really an emergency measure, that he will not press the point of the licensing justices. He would then get a much more ready acquiescence from many people who look upon this Bill with suspicion. If the Home Secretary does wish to get that support he will refer the matter to the whole body of magistrates, and will not give it any appearance of being a Licensing Bill. It is not a Licensing Bill. There is a great danger that this measure will rankle in the minds of a great many people whose ready acquiescence the right hon. Gentleman really desires to obtain, and I therefore make this appeal to him. He has not made out a case for the licensing magistrates, and, if he gives way in this matter, I think it will assist him afterwards in the progress of his Bill.
Mr. DENNISSThe Home Secretary does not altogether appreciate the fact that it is for him to justify the distinction he has made between county boroughs and the rest of the country. Why does he say in the case of the county boroughs that the power under this Bill is to be limited to a select portion of the magistrates, containing a predominance of fanatical teetotallers? I have been connected with licensing matters for many years, and the possibility of getting licences is extremely remote. It was only the other day that I got one where application had been made for eleven years. It was simply an on-licence, and it had been refused without any reason for years. The public has no confidence in the licensing bench, and, if the object of the right hon. Gentleman is to smooth public opinion, and let this Act work beneficially and without friction, then in this matter, which everybody says is such a small one, he might very well give way. We regard with the greatest possible suspicion any Bill which introduces the licensing justices, and when a 314 particular distinction is made, as in this case, between county boroughs and the rest of the country, we feel we must press our objection. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, but the powers are only restrictive." The contrary is the case. As soon as they agree it is necessary to shut up public-houses within the limits of the borough, subject to the various restrictions and provisos, they can fix what hours they please and make them as inconvenient as possible to people whom, on temperance principles, they wish to stop drinking. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the object is patriotic. But the British public will not believe that, and if he wants his Bill to work smoothly and without friction, if he wants the public to have confidence in the tribunal which is to settle the hours during which public-houses are to be closed, I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to insist on making this distinction between county boroughs and the rest of the country, unless he can show very sound reasons for so doing. So far no such reasons have even been hinted. No Member of this Committee has heard them, at any rate, and why, therefore, should we be expected to vote for this proposal? Why does the right hon. Gentleman so strongly adhere to it? Will he give us his reason before we go to a Division?
The rest of the magistrates are fully as representative as those who are on the licensing committee. The right hon. Gentleman has said something about their particular knowledge of public-houses—a knowledge due to the fact that they visit the public-houses in the different districts and ascertain the requirements of a neighbourhood before they grant licences. But the other justices are equally well informed as to the temper of the people in any locality and as to the likelihood of riot or drunkenness. After all, the licensing justices are only a small, select, sectional body appointed for a given purpose, and there is no justification whatever for having put into this Bill a proposal which will create very bad feeling in the country. We have been told that this is a very small matter. If that be the case, then why does not the right hon. Gentleman withdraw his proposal?
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
315Mr. MARSHALL HALLI beg to thank the Home Secretary for having accepted the Amendment, which I have now to propose, in the same Sub-section, namely, to leave out the words "that it is desirable in any area temporarily to restrict the sale, consumption, and supply of intoxicating liquor by," and to insert instead thereof the words "fit, upon the recommendation of the chief officer of police that it is desirable for the maintenance of order, or the suppression of drunkenness in any area."
§ Dr. CHAPPLEIn connection with this proposed Amendment, may I suggest the substitution of the word "drinking" for "drunkenness"? Apparently, as the proposal stands, drunkenness will have to take place before there is sufficient justification for such a recommendation. As a matter of fact, it is not drunkenness that is the evil; it is drinking, because a man excited by drink, although he may not be drunk, may be much more riotous, and, indeed, is as a rule much more riotous, than a man who is actually drunk. It is quite fallacious to think that until a man is drunk no evil arises. As a matter of fact, great evil is due to the excitement caused by drink, although there may not be actual drunkenness. Therefore, I would like to see the Clause read "for the maintenance of order, or the suppression of drinking," because it must be apparent that, if drinking is taking place, it may be desirable for the chief officer of police to make this recommendation before drunkenness actually occurs or rioting proceeds.
§ Mr. RAFFANMay I ask if it is proposed that in the county it shall be the chief constable who is to make the recommendation?
§ Mr. McKENNAYes, it will be the chief constable for the county. I cannot accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire (Dr. Chapple) to substitute drinking for drunkenness.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Words, "fit, upon the recommendation of the chief officer of police that it is 316 desirable for the maintenance of order or the suppression of drunkenness in any area," there inserted.
§ Mr. RADFORDI beg to move, in the same Sub-section, to leave out the words "and the supply or consumption of intoxicating liquors in any registered club in the area."
The insertion of these words is an innovation which I think ought not to be made in an emergency Bill that is being passed rapidly and without full consideration by the House, owing to the indulgence which, under present circumstances, hon. Members are prepared to extend to the Government. There is, I believe, no precedent on the Statute Book for any authority, either magisterial or police, restricting the supply or consumption of liquor in any registered club, and I think any such innovation as that ought not to be carried in an emergency measure, but should be reserved for deliberate discussion on some future occasion when we have time to deal with such matters. It is not merely an innovation. It is a highly controversial proposal. Hon. Members in this House have different opinions with regard to temperance and temperance legislation. I find my place amongst ardent temperance reformers, but I have always held that if you want to enter a man's house or his club and restrict the amount of liquor that he consumes or the hours during which he may consume it. you must confine yourself to reasoned argument and not rely upon compulsory legislation. I believe that that opinion is very widely held, and no matter of this kind, new and so highly controversial, ought to be introduced in an emergency Bill. I therefore appeal to my right hon. Friend to leave out this particular proposal and to allow it to be discussed on some more convenient occasion.
It is quite unnecessary thus to interfere with the clubs. Members generally may not be aware of the large number of clubs mostly resorted to by working men in this country, and the very useful functions they discharge in social life. Hon. Members, too, may not recognise that the drink they consume is one of the most trivial incidents in their vigorous careers. 317 Hon. Members smile at that, but I think if I were to supply them with a list showing the number of clubs that exist and the activities which they exercise, together with the daily consumption of liquor, as proved by the books, they would agree with me there is really no necessity whatever for introducing this particular provision into this Clause. It is for these reasons I beg to move the deletion of these words. I have not conspired with anyone, but I hope that some of my hon. Friends will give this proposal support.
§ Mr. McKENNAIt is not often that I disagree with my hon. Friend, but I am bound to say that on this occasion every one of the arguments which he used was directed against his ease. It is because this is an emergency measure that we are bound to do things that in ordinary legislation we should not do. Can we conceive anything more unfair in an emergency measure than to close the public-houses in any district, say, at ten or eleven o'clock instead of midnight, and to leave the clubs open, to do all the trade, all night, which the publicans are forbidden to do? I can conceive nothing more unfair. Let me say that we do not in the least propose to interfere with the vigorous career of the clubs. It is only the trivial incident with which we are dealing. We propose that in the mere trivial incident of selling intoxicating liquor that the clubs shall, where the police think it desirable for the maintenance of order and for the suppression of drunkenness, conform to the hours to which the public-houses are made to conform. I think my hon. Friend did not make out his case, and I trust he will not press the Amendment further.
§ Mr. WILLIAM THORNEI should like to ask the Home Secretary whether, in the event of the licensing authority reducing the hours of sale at public-houses, say, for two hours at night, the clubs will also be closed for those two hours, or whether the clubs will remain open under their rules and regulations?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe construction of the Bill would mean that if an order were made that intoxicating liquors should not be sold after eleven o'clock at night, then intoxicating liquors could not be sold either in licensed premises or in 318 clubs after eleven o'clock at night. Of course, they are free to remain open and conduct their ordinary vigorous career, but intoxicating liquors could not be sold after eleven o'clock at night.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)I understand that the subsequent Amendments on the Paper are pretty well all covered by the Government proposals.
Mr. MARSHALL HALLAs to my Amendment, although it is not exactly covered by the Home Secretary's proposal, in view of his proposal I do not propose to-move it.
§ Mr. PETOWith regard to my Amendment, I desire to hear the Home Secretary's Amendment before moving a proviso to it.
§ Mr. McKENNAI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "remain in force for more than fourteen days except with the approval of," and to insert instead thereof the words, "have effect until approved by."
That takes out the limitation of fourteen days, and has the effect that no order restricting the sale to an earlier hour than nine o'clock can have effect until approved by the Secretary of State.
§ Mr. SHERWELLI only rise to ask a question, namely, whether the Home Secretary, in the qualification of his proviso, has taken into account the effect it will have on the general power of magistrates at present to close licensed premises, when they think fit, in the interests of social order at any time, and during any hour, say, in the case of a riot? Will not his proviso actually limit the powers possessed by the licensing magistrates?
§ Mr. McKENNANo, the existing law remains the same. Where a riot is apprehended, the licensing justices have complete control. It is only an order under this Bill which will be subject to the proviso. The proviso says "any such order."
§ 2.0 P.M.
§ Mr. SWIFTIs not the effect of the Amendment that no order closing the public-houses before nine o'clock is to have effect without the Home Secretary's sanction? Under the Bill as it originally stood, if an order was made closing a house at 319 nine o'clock, the Home Secretary's sanction was necessary if the order "were to remain in force for more than fourteen days. Cannot the fourteen days' provision be retained with regard to closing houses after nine o'clock? Supposing an order is made to close the houses at 9.30, is there any reason why that order should exist for more than fourteen days without being subject to the approval of the Home. Secretary? I think it is desirable that local authorities, whoever they may be, should not have power of closing houses for a period of more than fourteen days at a time without the sanction of the Home Office. It is impossible to conceive an emergency taking place in any district which one can foresee is going to last for more than fourteen days. The order for fourteen days ought to be enough. If they want to make it for a longer period, then it is perfectly simple to make the order for the fourteen days and in the meantime go to the Home Office and obtain power to make an order for another and a longer period. It gives a feeling of security if they have to go to the Home Office, which some people do not possess when they have only to deal with the authorities such as those to whom these powers have been entrusted. While I am speaking on this matter may I say, as one of those who have had the opportunity of speaking to the Home Secretary about some of the matters in this Bill, that I am very grateful to him for the way in which he met the views I personally had to put before him. I hope he will give me further consideration, and put in some words to the effect I have stated.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Words "have effect until approved by" there inserted.
§ Mr. PETOI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words "provided also that in no circumstance shall the approval of the Secretary of State be given to any Order to suspend the sale, supply, or consumption of intoxicating liquor between the hours of 11 a.m. and 2 p.m., and 5 p.m. and 9 p.m."
The words of the proviso as they now stand are undoubtedly, from my point of 320 view, an improvement on the provisions of the Bill as it stood, but they do not meet the point of the Amendment I have on the Paper. I do not propose to move the Amendment in the exact form in which it appears on the Paper, because the words of the proviso now approved by the Committee are, in some senses, wider than the words I propose to put in. But the great point still remains that, considering this is an emergency Bill which only deals with what is right and wise to do considering the state of war in which we are, and that it is not governed in any way by, nor does it interfere with, the law with regard to a state of riot, where the powers of the magistrate are the same as they were before, I cannot see the slightest justification for taking the power in this Bill, even with the consent of the Home Secretary, for the closing of houses of refreshment during the ordinary meal hours of the working classes. The whole basis of this Bill is to prevent excessive drinking, to prevent drunkenness and the possible demoralisation of those parts of His Majesty's forces who may be with the Colours. None of those things can take place between such hours as eleven in the morning and two in the afternoon, when people are getting their lunch or dinner or mid-day meal, or between five in the afternoon and nine in the evening, when they are taking their evening dinner. I do not see the slightest ground for giving power under this Bill, even with the consent of the Home Secretary, which will deprive whole sections of the working classes, in one area or another, of any opportunity of taking a single glass of beer with their dinner or supper. There are no provisions in this Bill which will operate in the same way for the classes who are asked to legislate in this matter. Until we are prepared, because the country is at war, to go in for voluntary teetotalism, and for every member to abide by it, it is a ridiculous piece of hypocrisy for us to pass a measure in the guise of an emergency measure which may be put into operation in such a way, in certain areas, that it will be impossible for a working man to get a glass of beer with his dinner. As to the question of hours in my proviso I am open to argument, if they are considered too wide to cover the ordinary meal hours. 321 Considering the conditions of varying trades and varying districts, I do not think they can be further restricted and still carry out their purpose. A good deal has been said about this Bill not being misunderstood. I am quite sure that a simple Clause that everyone can understand like that will do more good to get this Bill accepted without fear of mistrust and dislike by the working classes than anything I can think of. I do not believe there is the slightest necessity for the Home Secretary to take the power to close houses of refreshment at these hours, and I hope he will accept this further proviso and allow us to proceed to further Amendments on the Bill.
§ Mr. McKENNAI hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment, not that I do not agree with him. I cannot conceive of sanctioning an Order to close public-houses at the ordinary meal hours of the working classes, unless it were for an emergency, in which everyone will agree that they ought to be closed.
§ Mr. McKENNANo, it might be other things. The objection to putting these words in is that it is a sort of indication to the licensing authorities as to the kind of Order that they should make. I should say that would be a very stringent Order. If the limit suggested by the hon. Member were in the Bill, in my judgment it would be an extremely stringent one, which ought only to be sanctioned in very exceptional circumstances. The moment you put these words into this Bill every licensing authority in the country would say, "We ought to make that Order; that is the Order which Parliament contemplates our making," and I really believe the Amendment would have exactly the opposite effect to that which the hon. Member desires. I have promised that I will give to the House at very frequent intervals a Return of the Orders made. The hon. Member can always have the Home Secretary to cross-question. The Prime Minister has stated that there will be no long space of time between the Sittings of the House. It is obvious that the Government will have to come to the House frequently for emergency Bills and money Bills, and there will be no danger of the Secretary of State exercising his powers under this Bill 322 irrationally. I can assure the hon. Member that I certainly should regard it as very irrational, except in circumstances of extreme emergency, to close public-houses during meal-times.
§ Mr. LONGI think there is a good deal in what the Home Secretary has said. We know from past experience that when you put certain definite terms into a Bill and it becomes an Act of Parliament, local authorities are rather apt to take those terms as an indication, and in order to save themselves trouble, and sometimes even to avoid responsibility, they fall back upon the language of an Act of Parliament and translate it into the form that their action is to take. On the other hand, I do not think we ought to pass this Amendment unless the Home Secretary is prepared to say something a little more definite than he has said. What he has already told the Committee is very satisfactory. He cannot conceive himself assenting to such a limitation as my hon. Friend in his Amendment wants to prevent. But will the Home Secretary go further and say definitely that he will not in any circumstances assent to such a change unless the emergency is so great as to make it absolutely essential?
§ Mr. McKENNAYes, certainly.
§ Mr. LONGI am very much obliged to the Home Secretary. I think my hon. Friend will realise that that materially alters the position, and we have actually got what we want—an express assurance that, except in very exceptional circum-stances, the Home Secretary will not assent to any proportion of the kind. I do not want to use any language which may seem to the most sensitive to be offensive, but we want to prevent the extreme action of extremists, and we all know, who know anything about this form of local government, that there are benches in the country which quite honestly and conscientiously hold ideas, in the interests of the community, that the law should be used to the fullest extent in order to remove temptation out of the way of people. I am not at all sure that the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell) would not take that view if he had the power and were on a Bench. He would say, "Here is a great opportunity to reform 323 the people; we must remove temptation out of their way," and I am sure he would say it conscientiously, with absolute conviction, and being really desirous of serving the community. But we take a different view. We say this Bill ought not to be used for a purpose of that kind. This is not an ordinary temperance reform. It is not intended to be used as an engine for promoting even the best cause. It is only intended for a special specific purpose, and is only to be used within certain very narrow limits. I hesitate to express an adverse opinion on my hon. Friend's Amendment, which is excellent, but I am inclined to believe that he will be more likely to secure what he wants—the protection of the rights of the working people—by the assurance the Home Secretary has given in reply to his Amendment than by incorporating these words in the Bill, which might have the effect I have already described, and might also limit the power of the local authority and the Home Secretary in a moment of great emergency, when all would agree that full powers ought to be exercised.
§ Mr. GOULDINGAs I have an Amendment in much the same terms, I desire to congratulate my hon. Friend on having secured the very specific statement of the Home Secretary. I am perfectly certain, the statement is so clear and specific, that it will carry assurance to the people in the country, and that the working classes will appreciate that it is not class legislation, and that their interests will be safeguarded.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. SWIFTI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words—
"and the Court may order, if the person convicted is the holder of a retailer's licence, that the licence be forfeited, and, if The offence is committed in relation to or in connection with the supply of intoxicating liquor in a club, that the club be struck off the register without any special complaint having been made for the purpose,"
and to insert instead thereof the words—
"if any person feels aggrieved by a conviction under this Section he may appeal 324 therefrom to Quarter Sessions in accordance with the Summary Jurisdiction Acts."
§ This Amendment has been agreed to by the Home Secretary, and I do not want to occupy the time of the House saying anything about it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Captain JESSELI beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words—"
any licensing district or any part of a; licensing district which is situate in the Metropolitan Police district, the Commissioner of Police, acting with the approval of the Secretary of State,and to insert instead thereof the words—the county of London the committee of the compensation authority appointed under Section 6 of the' Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910.The Bill as originally drawn gives power to the Commissioner of Police to take action. My hon. Friends who support this Amendment think that there should be some popular body between the Commissioner of Police and the Home Secretary.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Question "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.