LIQUOR LICENCE APPLICATION, DUNDEE. (Hansard, 27 April 1938)

§ Mr. Robert Gibson
I desire to raise a question arising out of a failure of duty in police administration in the City of Dundee resulting in grave interference with the liberty of certain citizens there. Very shortly the facts giving rise to the matter are these. There is in Dundee a debating organisation known as the Dundee Parliament. It has had a long and an honourable career, and its diamond jubilee was celebrated in January of this year. The members of that organisation decided, as they were quite entitled to do, that the celebration would take the form of a dinner, and they also decided that the dinner would be a "dry" function. That decision was widely noted in the Press circulating in Dundee. In particular, it was noted in the "People's Journal" of Saturday, 11th December, 1937; and in the "Dundee News," "Dundee wants dry dinner" was the heading. Now, towards the carrying out of that diamond jubilee 266 celebration, arrangements were made that the celebration should take place in the Val d'Or Restaurant, Dundee, premises which are unlicensed. But when the company assembled, the members of the Dundee Parliament were surprised to find that a licence had been granted for that particular function. Certain members objected, some of them strongly. In particular, Mr. Murdoch Wallace, a well-known Dundee master baker protested strongly, and he and his wife left the restaurant, with others, in protest.

§ Miss Horsbrugh
Is it not the case that the gentleman to whom the hon. and learned Member refers left after the dinner, after he and his wife had eaten their dinner and drunk their coffee, and just before the speeches?

§ Mr. Gibson
My information is that the matter was widely reported in the Press. The hon. Lady was present, and she probably knows about the fact of the protest. I take it she was unaware of the previous decision of that organisation with regard to the type of function that was to take place. These being the facts, one wonders how it came to be that a licence was granted on that particular occasion. Application was made to the police for information with regard to the matter, and that information was absolutely refused. There was a complete refusal to say when the licence was granted and to whom it was granted. I say that this is a matter of police administration, and the reason I say that is that the granting of a licence for a temporary purpose such as this was, is covered by the provisions contained in Section 40 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903. It is only a particular type of individual who may apply for the licence. He must hold a certificate for the keeping of a hotel or the keeping of a public house, and he must be duly licensed to sell excisable liquors to be consumed on the premises. But while such a person may make application, he has to conform to certain provisions laid down in Section 40. The case has to be known to the two members of the Licensing Court who deal with the matter, and if those members of the Licensing Court think fit, and if they are satisfied that the entertainment is for a special occasion of a legitimate and proper character, and is not one originating directly or indirectly with the 267 person holding such a certificate, they may grant special permission.
But a condition precedent to the granting of that special permission is that 48 hours at least before the application is made, the applicant must serve on the chief constable a notice of his intention to make the application for the permission, and that notice must contain certain particulars. These particulars include the name and address of the applicant, the place and occasion in respect of which the permission is required, and the persons to whom the application is intended to be made. The period for which the permission is to be enforced and the hours have to be specified. The chief constable is the only individual to whom any notice is given. This application for a licence is quite different from applications for ordinary licences for licensed premises, where there is an advertisement under Section 17 and certain parties have the right to object. That is provided under Section 19. But there is nothing of that sort in Section 40, when an application is made for a temporary licence for a special occasion.
Accordingly there is a very clear duty on the chief constable to see that the special permission is not improperly granted. That is the only reason that there can be why such an intimation is made to him. In view of the circumstances which I have described there is prima faciea clear duty on the chief constable, which was not carried out in this case, to inquire what was the special occasion, and whether the authority of the Dundee Parliament was obtained for the application. It was, as I have indicated, their special function, and they had, by solemn vote of their organisation, decided, as they were entitled to do, that this was to be a "dry" function. They could have decided otherwise, but, as it happens, they chose to do it that way. Dundee, like Greenock, has a tradition in connection with temperance matters. Dundee was represented in this House by Mr. Edward Scrymgeour, who was well known and respected in this House, and his views on this subject were well known to Members of the House during his time. Ours is a democratic country and this House is fond of its democratic traditions. Here was a decision arrived at democratically but shockingly abused. There was not 268 only a clear case for complaint but there was occasion to have that complaint redressed. It was not redressed and no help at all was given by the local police. I submit that prima faciethe chief constable failed in his duty to make inquiries. I can understand that he himself did not know without making inquiries that the Dundee Parliament had decided to hold a "dry" function. I put a question on this matter to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the Minister responsible for police administration in Scotland. The police in Scotland are remunerated partly from money voted by this House and the House is entitled to know whether or not the chief constable has discharged his duty in this case. A question which I put to the Secretary of State on Tuesday, 15th March, was directed to finding out what the chief constable had done. I asked: What inquiries were made by the Chief Constable…to ascertain by what warrant or authority the said application was promoted? I got evasive answers, to put it no higher, by the right hon. Gentleman, who said: I am not in a position to give details of individual applications. That will not do, in view of the duties that are applied, in terms of the statutory provisions, to the chief constable, who is directly responsible to the right hon. Gentleman. Accordingly I asked the right hon. Gentleman, in a supplementary question: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received a report from the Chief Constable on this matter? The reply of the Minister was: As I have said again and again, the disposal of applications is entirely a matter for members of the Licensing Court. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1938; cols. 193–4, Vol. 333.] That is not dealing with the question that I put to him. I am entitled to know, this House is entitled to know, and, through this House, the people of Dundee are entitled to know, what are the terms of the Chief Constable's report. I made my request to the right hon. Gentleman for that report: what were its details and what were the steps that the Chief Constable took to carry out his duty as the guardian of the interests of the public in the matter, and in particular the interests of those holding the special function? That is, in my submission, a clear breach of duty. These citizens were holding a 269 special function. They had decided the type of function that it was to be, and yet somebody, without their authority, made representations to two members of the Licensing Court in Dundee and obtained a licence. On the face of it, that licence could only have been got by misrepresentation of fact, and misrepresentation of fact made to the Licensing Court is a very serious thing indeed. It is a matter into which the right hon. Gentleman ought to have inquired, and which he ought to have passed on to the Lord Advocate for his consideration and action.
Accordingly, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to make a full disclosure of this matter and not to slide off by evasive answers and emphasise the fact, in the face of Scotland, that there is something here to hide. What has been done ought to be disclosed. On the face of it, there is a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Chief Constable of Dundee. He must take care of his steps in view of quite recent history in his department there. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to clear up the whole matter, make a clean breast of it, and clean up the whole thing in the interests of justice in Scotland and in Dundee.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland {Mr. Wedderburn)
The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised two questions—firstly, why this licence was granted by the Chief Constable, and, secondly, what were the circumstances which led up to the application for that licence?

§ Mr. Gibson
The Chief Constable did not grant the licence.

Mr. Wedderburn
It was granted by two members of the Licensing Court, and the Chief Constable had to satisfy himself that the requirements of the Act were fulfilled. In regard to the first of these questions, the hon. and learned Gentleman has himself read out at length the provisions of Section 40 of the 1903 Act which lay down the conditions under which special licences of this kind may be claimed, and I shall not, therefore, go over them again. All that the duty of the Chief Constable consists of is to satisfy himself that these conditions have been fulfilled. He has to satisfy himself that the occasion is a 270 special one of a legitimate and proper character, and that the application did not originate with the applicant. All the conditions have been thoroughly fulfilled by the Licensing Court, to whom the application was made, and by the Chief Constable. The application was made as a result of representations from the council of this institution known as the Dundee Parliament, who asked the licence holder to make the application in order that he might supply them with the refreshment that they desired at their dinner. It is not the business of the Chief Constable, still less the business of my right hon. Friend, to inquire what may have taken place in the Dundee Parliament. The Council of the Dundee Parliament were the persons responsible for organising the dinner. They had the authority, and it was they who were making all the arrangements. It is not our business or the Chief Constable's business to ask what debates took place among their members.

§ Mr. Gibson
Is the hon. Gentleman going to disclose the application that was made?

Mr. Wedderburn
I have the application here. It was made by Mr. William Mackintosh, of 46, Gellatly Street, Dundee. He was the applicant, that is to say, the person whom the council. of the Dundee Parliament asked to supply refreshments. He made the application to the court, who satisfied themselves that the application did not originate with him, and that its character was legitimate.

§ Mr. Gibson
What reply did the Chief Constable receive as to whether it was a bona-fide application on behalf of the Dundee Parliament?

Mr. Wedderburn
It was an application which was prompted by the council of the parliament, which was a properly constituted body, and it is ridiculous to say that there was any dereliction of duty on the part of the Chief Constable because he did not catechise the members of the parliament. All he had to do was to satisfy himself that it was an occasion of a special and legitimate character, and that the applicant was not the person who originated the application but that he was acting only on behalf of the persons organising the dinner.
271 That, so far as I am concerned, and so far as the Chief Constable or the licensing court are concerned, is all I have to say officially on the matter. But in view of the interest which the hon. and learned Member has taken in this matter, I have had the curiosity to inquire into the circumstances which led to this application being made, although it is not a matter for which we or the Chief Constable have any official responsibility. The hon. and learned Member has said that this Dundee Parliament—not the council—decided—I think it was by a vote of 18 to 16—that the dinner should be dry. I am informed that some of those who voted with the majority were under the impression that they were voting, not that the dinner should be "dry" in the sense that no refreshments should be allowed, but in the sense that the tickets should not include the price of drinks. It was decided that the members of the parliament wishing to attend the dinner should purchase a ticket which would entitle them to have food, and that if they wished to purchase refreshments in addition they should pay for them as extras.

§ Mr. Gibson
Has the Minister got that from the report of the Chief Constable?

Mr. Wedderburn
It has nothing to do with the Chief Constable, and I am relating only what I have heard, because I thought it might be of interest to the hon. Member. However that may be, the application was granted and the dinner was held. When the dinner was nearly completed, according to a Press report which I have, Mr. Murdoch Wallace rose from the table remarking: "This is very unfortunate," and made what is described as a dramatic exit, accompanied by a chorus of "Good nights" from the assembled company. I understand that this gentleman did not make his protest until after he had eaten his dinner; I believe he had even reached the stage of his second cup of coffee. All that he really missed was the after-dinner speeches.

§ Mr. McGovern
He did not miss much.

§ Mr. Gibson
Is the Minister aware that he left as soon as it was apparent that 272 there was liquor on sale in contravention of the decision of the Parliament?

§ Miss Horsbrugh
May I ask the hon. and learned Member what evidence he has that that gentleman only left when he was aware that there was liquor? My hon. Friend the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) and I attended the dinner, and that gentleman did not leave until the dinner was finished, and practically all the refreshments were finished, and the speeches, which may have been the driest part, only were left. How, then, can it be suggested that he left immediately he was aware that liquor was being consumed unless he was entirely unaware of everything that was occurring during the dinner?

Mr. Wedderburn
rose—

§ Mr. Gibson
The hon. Lady has asked me a question. Surely I have the right to reply.

Mr. Wedderburn
I think we might leave it there.

§ Mr. Gibson
Is not the position this, that the Parliament had decided to have a "dry" occasion, and that these people had been deluded, too?

Mr. Wedderburn
As I have said, there were no fewer than nine speeches, one of which was made by the Lord Provost, and two by my hon. Friends the senior and junior Members for Dundee. The hon. and learned Member has told us that it was intended to be a dry function, but whatever opinion we may hold as to its aridity I am sure that we can have no doubt about its highly respectable character, and I cannot help regretting that any reflection should have been cast upon the activities of this highly respectable society, who were only exercising that legitimate freedom which they are entitled to enjoy under the laws of our country.