HC Deb 17 May 1946 vol 422 cc2318-28

Order for Second Reading read.

1.31 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This is a short and, it is hoped, a non-controversial Measure, designed to provide a little elasticity in the arrangements laid down in the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1945 for the constitution of licensing planning areas and licensing planning committees. It proposes no fundamental change in the scheme laid down last year, but is designed to meet one or two difficulties which have arisen in the working out of that Act. It will be remembered that last year's Act was founded on a report of a Select Committee over which Mr. John Morris, now Mr. Justice Morris, presided. Its object was to provide means by which the licensing justices and the local planning committees could collaborate in securing the redistribution of licensed premises in connection with the redevelopment of war damaged areas. For that purpose, Section I of the Act empowered the Secretary of State, after consultation with the licensing justices and the local planning authorities, to make orders declaring such an area to be a licensed planning area.

Section 2 provided that a licensing planning committee should then be set up consisting of a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State and of representatives, in equal number, of the licensing justices and the local planning authorities. The Committee is then required, after such consultation and negotiation as they think desirable, to formulate proposals for the redistribution or surrender of licences within their area and to submit these proposals for confirmation to the Minister of Town and Country Planning. By the end of last year, 17 licensing planning areas had been constituted under the Act. From most of them no suggestion has come that the machinery of the Act is not working smoothly, but in a few areas difficulties have already arisen which cannot be overcome without amending legislation. The first of these difficulties arises from the fact that under Section i of the Act of 1945 the original licensing planning areas must consist of contiguous licensing districts. In general, a licensing district consists of complete and contiguous local government areas and in such circumstances no difficulty arises. There are districts, however, where this is not the case. Thus the borough of Dover plainly should be a licensing area but, owing to a provision which is tucked away in Section 2 (5) of the Licensing Consolidation Act of 1910, the Dover licensing district includes the liberties of Dover as one of the Cinque Ports. This means that, as the law stands, the Dover licensing planning area must include two areas which are detached from the borough, and the Dover committee must include representatives of four local plan- ning authorities which are in no way concerned with Dover itself.

Again, it is desired to declare a licensing planning area at Penge, but Penge licensing district includes one half of the borough of Beckenham and the other half is in the widespread Bromley licensing district, which contains four local planning committees, besides the Beckenham borough council, which have jurisdiction over various parts of that area. As the law stands, all these authorities would have to be represented on the proposed committee. It is unnecessary for me to stress to the House the necessity of having reasonably compact committees if useful work is to be done. When it is remembered that for every representative of a local planning committee there must be a representative of the licensing justices, it is easy to understand how large and cumbersome such committees would be. Therefore, it is necessary to have some restriction, or some relaxation from the existing Act. Clause I of the Bill provides: Where (a) a county district forms part only of a licensing district,… —as at Dover— or (b) a county district includes parts of more than one licensing district. as at Beckenham, the county district may be taken as a unit in declaring a licensing planning area. The term "county district," of course, includes a borough or an urban or rural district.

Clause 2 deals with the difficulty in regard to overspill areas. Section (3) of the 1945 Act empowered the licensing planning committees to apply to the Secretary of State for orders adding to their areas licensing districts to which there has been, or is likely to be, a substantial transfer of population or industry from the original area. The object is to enable the committee to secure the transfer to the overspill areas, of licences needed there and not needed in the original areas. Here again, the Section treats the whole licensing district as a unit and, in the absence of grounds to the contrary, this would be the natural course, but a good deal depends on whether the overspill is widely spread over the district, or is mainly concentrated in a small area of it—as, for example, in a small new housing estate—and also on the extent and number of the districts involved. Up to the moment, no order adding an overspill area has been made The matter has been considered by several committees and they have been dismayed at the extent of the areas which, as the law stands, would be added to their original areas if they are to deal with overspill housing estates. The difficulty has been felt chiefly by the County of London committee, which already had a very heavy and urgent task in London itself, while it also ought to deal with numerous housing estates outside the county. The committee would be seriously overburdened if it had to deal with the whole licensing district containing these housing estates. The difficulty is not confined to London. At Sheffield, an exceptionally large licensing district would require to be added in order to cover one corporation housing estate, and, at Portsmouth, two large licensing districts would require to be added to cover one housing estate lying on the border between the two districts.

Clause 2 of this Bill therefore empowers the Secretary of State to make Orders for the addition to licensing planning areas of overspill areas consisting of parts of licensing districts. Incidentally, this will provide the means of meeting a position which may arise if two licensing planning areas, for example, London and West Ham or Portsmouth and Southampton, overspill into the same licensing district and both the Committees ask for part of the district to be added to their area.

Clause 3 (I) contains further provision for sub-committees. Section 10 of the 1945 Act, which makes special provision for the County of London, empowered the Secretary of State to provide by Order for such committees to consider such matters as may be specified in the Order. This was done, primarily, in order to provide for local sub-committees to include representatives of the Metropolitan Borough Councils, which are not planning authorities and entitled, as such, to representation on the licensing planning committee. It was not, therefore, thought necessary to make provision for sub-committees outside London. When, however the Order setting up London sub-committees came to be made, it was found advisable to entrust to them certain duties with regard to applications for new licences and temporary removals which might equally well be entrusted to sub-committees elsewhere. This, however, could not properly be done without statutory authority for sub-committees, and, therefore, Clause 3 (I) provides that Orders constituting licensing planning areas outside the County of London, or adding overspill areas to them, may include provisions for sub-committees to consider such matters as may be specified in the Order. Any such Order would, of course, be made only after full consultation with the licensing justices and the planning authorities concerned.

Clause 3 (2) deals with the difficulty which has been foreseen where Orders are likely to be made adding a number of overspill areas to the original area. But a joint planning committee, as being concerned as well as the district council, in which case the minimum number of additional representatives is four. Where, therefore, a number of areas are added, the committee would become unwieldy if all the members were to concern themselves with all parts of the area, and the original members might actually be outnumbered. The Bill therefore provides, under Clause 3 (2) for the provinces, and Clause 3 (4) for London, that the voting rights of additional representatives may be limited to matters relating to the overspill areas with which they are concerned. This limitation is confined to voting on the main committees. If a sub-committee is set up for an overspill area, the representatives of that area will have full rights as members of the sub-committee and will also be able, as members of the main committee, to vote on all points arising when the report of the sub-committee is considered by the main committee.

The remaining provisions of the Bill are these. Clause 3 (3) provides merely for the variation and revocation of Orders under Clause 3 (I) and (2). Clause 3 (4) provides, in London and elsewhere, that representatives of the overspill areas may be members of the main committee as well as the sub-committees, and Clause 3 (5) empowers planning committees to pay secretaries of sub-committees, subject to the same conditions laid down in the Act of 1945 for the payment of secretaries of main committees. Under Section 2 (8) of the 1945 Act, these expenses will be defrayed by the local planning authorities concerned, who will, of course, be represented on the licensing planning committees. Roughly and briefly, those are the points which this amending Bill seeks to add. It will be observed that there is no departure from the principle laid down in this House last year, when the original Act was passed. This is purely a machinery Bill, and will, when it receives the Royal Assent, very materially help the committees to do their work and discharge their duties much more expeditiously.

1.47 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake () Leeds, North

The House is indebted to the Under-Secretary for his explanation of a complicated Measure, an explanation no less lucid, and I think rather more concise, than that given by the learned Lord Chancellor in another place. I was concerned with the early stages of the preparation of the original Measure, which, as the hon. Gentleman stated, was based upon the report of a Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Morris. It was clear that, in the areas of extensive war damage, considerable replanning of licensed premises would be required. Parliament, in the past, has always laid it down that beer should, as far as possible, be kept out of local politics, and in the past questions affecting the numbers and location of licensed premises have been wisely left in the hands of justices. However, where areas of extensive war damage are concerned, it is perfectly clear that planning considerations must also arise, and therefore, the scheme was evolved of a joint committee of licensing justices and representatives of the planning authority, with an impartial chairman nominated by the Home Secretary. The original Bill made provision for the operation of sub-committees in the county of London area. This Bill, in its main provision, enables sub-committees also to operate in other parts of the country. As the hon. Gentleman has so clearly explained, the provisions of the Bill will, in fact, simplify the operation and administration of the principal Act of March, 1945. For those reasons, we offer no opposition to it, and we trust that it will receive a speedy passage through the House.

1.50 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson () Ealing, West

I join with the right hon. Gentleman in his expression of gratitude to the Under-Secretary for his extremely able statement of the case for this Bill, for which we are indebted to him. Naturally, I do not altogether share the view of the right hon. Gentleman, because this Bill has to be considered with the Act that was passed last year. Those who are satisfied with the Act of last year will feel that things are quite all right in this Bill. I admit that the Government were in a great difficulty because there were, as the hon. Gentleman has explained, districts that ought to be included in such a way that effective supervision of the replanning of those areas could be carried out. I know that that is effectively provided for in the Bill, but all the disadvantages inherent in the original legislation of 1945 will remain in the extension of the earlier Measure, or as it has been called the added elasticity given to the earlier Measure by the Bill now before us.

The great disadvantage of the main legislation was hinted at by the right hon. Gentleman. The effective supervision of licensing formerly rested on the shoulders of the magistrates, with the assistance of appeals by the general public. It is a very important point in licensing administration that there should be the right of objection at the earliest possible stage when a licence comes to be considered. That right of objection, to some extent, disappears under the legislation of 1945 so far as those areas are concerned. Provision was made for an ultimate appeal to the Minister of Town and Country Planning, or to a court of inspection which he would provide under the Measure, but that was late in the proceedings under the 1945 Act Under the Bill which we are now considering, everything is cut and dried so far, as the granting of a new licence is concerned as between the newly set up committees and the trade, who are able to meet practically behind closed doors and fix up the scales on which new licences shall be provided. There is, of course, the safeguard that the committees will include men experienced in the licensing courts. Half are to be drawn from the licensing justices, but the other half will be drawn from public authorities, and the danger that will arise in connection with the earlier legislation is rather intensified in the smaller districts which are now to be included under sub-committees under this Bill.

For example, London has housing estates pushed out beyond the borders of the London County Council area which, under the provisions of this Bill, will have to be dealt with by sub-committees consisting of a few people drawn from the housing estate who, with representatives of the magistrates, will sit down and consider the problem of licensing in that area. It is surely probable that the gentlemen appointed to represent these "overspill areas," as they are called in the legislation, will not have the grip of the situation that they should have, if proper provision is to be made. I regret that, as did 30 Members of the last House of Commons, when a Motion was discussed which sought to remedy that sort of difficulty by providing that a poll should be taken in all districts where licences were to be granted. I agree that that Motion was rejected, but it was a very different House of Commons then and I am pretty certain that the Members who are here now would prefer the right of public objection to be brought back. Indeed, many of them said so explicitly before they were returned to the House, in answer to questions submitted to them by temperance and Church bodies.

I admit that that was not so in the original legislation, and it would be difficult for the Government to deal in this strictly limited Bill with the special problems that caused them to bring it in without going back on the whole original legislation. I felt I ought to say this because there is a grave doubt whether the new planning committees are taking into account the objections which the former Under-Secretary of State promised would be taken into consideration. It was promised that, as far as possible, churches, chapels and youth organisations, and people generally concerned with the public welfare in any area, might have their views considered before any final decision was taken. When the Government were further pressed upon the point the Solicitor-General of those days—I am glad to see the present Solicitor-General is here today, and perhaps he will be able to give me some undertaking on the same lines—assured us that all such objections would be taken into account.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker () Major Milner

I am not sure that the hon. Member is in Order. This Bill merely enables parts of licensing districts to be included in licensing planning areas. The question of local opinion or local option, or whatever it may be, does not seem to arise.

Mr. Hudson

With all respect to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it arises in regard to these overspill areas, where, as I have tried to show, the members of the committees and sub-committees are now more likely than ever to be unaware of all the factors of the case, and more likely to have had less experience in licensing matters than had the magistrates of the past. For that reason the right of objection promised in connection with the original legislation should be carefully safeguarded.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member does not say what right of objection he wants.

Mr. Hudson

The right of objection to the grant of licences by a sub-committee set up under this Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The grant of licences does not arise on this Bill. It does not seem to me to have any direct regard to the question of the issue of licences as such. The hon. Member has misconceived the object of the Bill, or, at any rate, he is certainly out of Order in what he is saying now.

Mr. Hudson

Of course, I must bow at once to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you definitely rule that I am out of Order. But may I ask you to consider the purpose of this legislation? This Bill states that it must be construed with the original Act. The subject of that legislation was the grant of licences removed from bombed areas into other areas How will there be control in the overspill areas in, for example, Sheffield, Portsmouth, London, and other places, of the grant of the licences or the grant of the removal of the licences from bombed territory? How will the rights of the public, the rights of objection by the public, be safeguarded in those areas? I was trying to show, that undertakings were given in the last Parliament on that matter. I would submit that it is right for me to ask of a new Government, in connection with this legislation, that this question of the right of objection by temperance bodies, Churches, youth organisations, welfare societies, and so on, should be watched by the careful supervision by the Home Office and the Government authorities. However, I will not press my point further. I can see the difficulty in which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, are placed in regard to this matter. I am in the same difficulty myself. I have really said all that I want to say on that question.

The further point I wish to make is, perhaps, parallel with what I have already been saying. There was in the old Measure, besides provision dealing with actual licensed premises, reference to other places where alcoholic beverages could be sold, for example, bottle shops. It was agreed that the question of bottle shops should be taken into account—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Really, that has nothing to do with the Question that this Bill be read a Second time.

Mr. Hudson

It was agreed in the last Parliament, and it was ruled, that the legislation covered the point, and that the question of bottle shops should be taken into account in the matter of general supervision in an overspill area or reconstruction area. It was stated at the time in the House of Commons—again by the Solicitor-General of that time—that there was really no difficulty about bottle shops, that they could come under supervision under different legislation, Defence Regulation 55B. That was mentioned as being adequate to protect Committees in dealing with this question. It was backed by the House of Commons at that time. But since then that Regulation has gone. There is nothing left, either in the original legislation or in this legislation, to cover that point which was then allowed to be put by the Chair. It was discussed in the House, and commitments were definitely made by the Government of the day. I am the one to know. However I will not press it any further. I see the difficulties.

I want to know from the Government if they can give any undertaking in line with that which was given in the last Parliament in view of the removal of Regulation 55B. There is no protection accorded to the House and no protection accorded to the general public in this matter. There might be on the part of the powerful liquor trade an attempt to deal with this question with committees behind closed doors. There might be tremendous pressure, on the one hand, to get an increase of licences, and, on the other, an increase of facilities, by giving the Excise Department power to extend bottle shops and other drinking institutions of that kind. We cannot let recon- struction authorities be without some sort of protection in that sort of matter. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department or the Solicitor-General will be able to say what the Government propose to do about that matter, and be at least as good as the last Government in the matter.

There are many of us in this House who are aware that we are confronted all the time on questions of this sort by an extremely powerful capitalist organisation that will ride roughshod, if we allow it, over all the organisation that we build up in connection with planning authorities or any other sort of authority. Unless we exercise watchfulness on questions of this sort, the public will be fleeced of many rights which today they enjoy. It is with that in mind that I have made my protest.

2.7 p.m.

Mr. Oliver

I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Bill that it has been my pleasure to introduce today consists of four Clauses only, not one of which deals with the matter that he has been discussing. There is nothing in the proposals whatsoever which minimises the rights which objectors now have. Nothing which this Bill does or seeks to do minimises those rights. If there are the rights which my hon. Friend says there are to lodge objections, then this Bill does not affect them. Objections may be sustained and may be proceeded with. With regard to the sub-committees, there is no reason in the world why the people who compose the sub-committees should be less experienced than any other persons, but as the object of the sub-committees is not to grant licences, the points he has raised do not arise.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]