HC Deb 20 June 1951 vol 489 cc597-9

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 2, at end, insert: 'dwelling-house' means a house or a part of a house being a house or a part normally used as a dwelling;

The Attorney-General

I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Manningham-Buller

Consequential?

The Attorney-General

The hon. and learned Gentleman is putting into my mouth a word which I now rather hesitate to use. It is consequential, but it also inserts a definition. It is consequential in the sense that a definition is made necessary by what has gone before.

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 23, at end, insert: so however that this exception shall not have effect where either—

  1. (a) the excise licence for the time being in force in respect of the premises is a licence the duty in respect of which is the reduced duty payable under section forty-five of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, or a licence granted in pursuance of regulations under subsection (5) of the said section forty-five (which relates to the granting of licences on the provisional payment of reduced duty), or
  2. (b) the Commissioners of Customs and Excise certify that no application under the said section forty-five has been made in respect of the period for which the excise licence for the time being in force was granted, but that if such an application had been made such a licence could properly have been granted as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph."

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I cannot possibly describe this Amendment as consequential, but I hope its object will be clearly known to the House. This matter was raised during Committee by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who said that when off-licensed premises were within if the scope of the Bill it was rather illogical to exclude restaurants where liquor could is be served with meals. It was then sought to devise some system whereby we could bring into the scope of the Bill restaurants with licences to serve intoxicating liquor with meals, while not at the same time bringing into the scope of the Bill ordinary public houses, with regard to which different considerations apply.

The object of this Amendment is to introduce provisions whereby licensed restaurants whose liquor sales constitute not more than 60 per cent. of their total sales can be brought within the scope of the Bill. For that purpose we have adapted and used certain provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, so that a restaurant coming within the provisions of that Act is brought within the scope of the present Bill.

Mr. Powell

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, this arises out of an Amendment tabled at an earlier t stage by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) and myself. There is one question I should like to address to the Attorney-General regarding this present form of wording. Under the Section of the Finance (1909–10) Act to which this refers, a reduced licence duty is payable by two types of premises. One t is the licensed restaurant to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, which it is desired by this Amendment to bring within the protection of the Bill.

The other, however, is a hotel by which the same conditions in regard to the proportion of liquor sales to total sales are fulfilled. I believe that a doubt exists whether these words have the effect of extending protection to that type of hotel as well, which would, I think, not be regarded as squaring with the general intention of the Bill. It certainly was not in my mind in moving the Amendment in Committee. I hope the Attorney-General can give us some guidance on that.

The Attorney-General

I speak again with the leave of the House. I think that no difficulty arises by reason of the defini- tion of the words "retail trade or business," which appear in Clause 20. Those words would, in all ordinary cases, exclude hotels. It is no doubt theoretically possible to have a hotel with a very large banqueting business but very few bedrooms, in which case it could be fitted into the conception of an undertaking carrying on a "retail trade or business. Unless it can be fitted in—and it is obvious that it would be only in rather rare cases that it could so be fitted in—it would not be brought within the scope of the Bill. There would have to be something which would show that it is an undertaking carrying on a "retail trade or business" and that would not apply to the ordinary hotel whose main business is to provide services in the form of accommodation.