HC Deb 11 June 1947 vol 438 cc1308-12
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver)

I beg to move, in page 56, line 5, to leave out from "on," to "there," in line 6, and to insert: or before the grant of an excise licence in pursuance of the new licence. There are two other Amendments connected with this which we shall move later. The object of the Clause is to remove an anomaly which was commented upon as far back as 1932 when the Royal Commission on licensing in England and Wales made their report. It has been found by the County of London Planning Licensing Committee that this has caused some difficulty in making it possible to negotiate for the surrender of licences. Whilst licences may be transferred or may be renewed without any payment of monopoly value, any variation of the conditions attached requires the issue of new licences. That new licence attracts full monopoly value which must be paid to the Exchequer.

Monopoly value is the difference in value between premises with a licence and premises without a licence. That, of course, may be a very considerable sum. Therefore, in those cases it is provided that where the new licence has been issued and the old licence surrendered, the amount which must be paid is the difference between the two licences. In other words, if there is a public house and the beer licence is surrendered and a hotel business is being obtained, obviously it is only right and proper that the beer licence which is surrendered should be taken into account in assessing the amount.

Mr. Bracken

What Amendment is the hon. Gentleman dealing with?

Mr. Oliver

I am explaining the Clause first.

Mr. Stanley

Surely it is customary that one deals with the Amendment first and the Clause afterwards.

Mr. Oliver

The intention of the Amendment is to provide that the surrender of the licence should take place as soon as the licensee is in a position to start business under the new licence.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

Many of us were wondering what the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary were doing here for three or four hours. It is now clear that the Under-Secretary has been studying his brief and it is something of a disappointment to find that he is not yet word perfect. However, the revealing speech he has delivered does cast some light on this matter and when the other Amendments are put forward and he delivers the oration with which he has come prepared we may be far better seized of the position.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 56, line 38, leave out from "and," to "at," in line 42, and insert: (a) an application to have the said amount determined may be made either at the general annual licensing meeting or."—[Mr. Oliver.]

Mr. Oliver

I beg to move, in page 57, line 1, at the beginning to insert: Where the two applications are made separately, then in the proceedings relating to the determination of the said amount.

This Amendment is consequential on the last one.

Mr. Stanley

I think we should have a little explanation, or at least a substantiation of this. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, since he has said it is consequential, will explain what it is consequential upon, and how, and why.

Mr. Oliver

The first Amendment makes it quite clear that the application may be made at the Brewster sessions or transfer sessions. This says that, Where the two applications are made separately, then in the proceedings relating to the determination of the said amount. and that follows in a purely consequential way.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

I should like, before we part with this Clause, to know a little more of what Section 14 of the Licensing Consolidation Act, of 1910, has to do with a justices' licence, and how far this Clause modifies any arrangements enacted under the Act of 1910. I am also slightly worried about Subsections (8) of Clause 62. Why is a licence for the sale of wine alone, or sweets alone, treated differently? What is the justification for the Government obtaining this? Surely the great object of the Amendment is to provide a wider range in the hotels of this country, and this sort of discriminatory Subsection ought, I think, to be dropped.

The real question is, what is the meaning of the phrase "for securing monopoly value"? How does this follow on the licensing Act in which the word "monopoly" does not occur?

Mr. Oliver

Under the Licensing Consolidation Act of 1910, Section 14, reference is made to a monopoly value.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

I really would be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman would quote the exact reference in Section 14.

Mr. Oliver

The Section reads: The licensing justices, on the grant of a new justices' on-licence, may attach to the grant of the licence such conditions, both as to the payments to be made and the tenure of the licence and as to any other matter, as they think proper in the interests of the public. subject as follows: (a) Such conditions shall in any case be attached as, having regard to the proper provision of suitable premises and good management, the justices think best adapted for securing to the public any monopoly value …

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report Progress: and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Hannan.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

Forward to