§ Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and and East Stirlingshire)
I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "towns," to insert "in England and Wales."
This is similar to an Amendment which we moved in Committee upstairs, but there is one great difference between the Committee upstairs and the House as at present assembled, in that in Committee there was one Scottish back bencher on the Government side, two Scottish back benchers from the Opposition, and in all only four Scottish Members, on a Committee deciding a matter of great importance to Scotland.
In view of the unfortunate absence of Scots from that Committee it is desirable that the House itself should take the opportunity of discussing this matter when the Scots are, or I hope will be, present. For instance, the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland), who represents an area containing a new town, was not a Member of the Committee upstairs, and although I do not see 100 him present at the moment I hope that before the debate is concluded he will be able to express the views of his area towards a change that is to be made in the law governing the new towns.
It is important that the Scots as a whole should be able to make their voices heard on this matter. We do not want to hear again the reproach made on an earlier Bill of this type, when an English Member who was successful in the Ballot and moved a Motion said it was a matter which had time and again been before the House of Commons, and been decided over and over again, not by Scottish Members but by Members representing England.
The question is: What does Scotland's voice say on this matter? While there is no way of ascertaining that in a Division between Scottish Members themselves, they will at least have the opportunity of making their views known in the Division Lobbies, if not by their voices. One thing we have never been told is who in Scotland wants this Bill. Who has made any representation to the Government? What justification have the Government for changing the law in 101 Scotland? We have never been told that anybody in Scotland supports the Bill. I have never heard of anyone who particularly wants the Scottish new towns opened up to the old trade, and I should very much like to know whether there is any evidence of anybody having been asked in reference to this Bill what should be done in our new towns.
On the last Motion the House discussed the Home Secretary, in his concluding remarks, made a very interesting statement. He said that tied houses had been matters of habit in England for over 200 years; that everybody had been brought up to recognise them, and that everyone was accustomed to their existence. That just shows, as he must very well know, how different are the circumstances in Scotland. In Scotland there is no such custom, there is no such habit, people have not grown up used to the type of tied houses that exist in England. In Scotland habits on this point are entirely different.
Scotland is totally different in custom, approach, and in training. I am not saying that claim that Scotland has benefited from the difference. In some respects, especially in regard to training, I regret to say that I deplore the difference. In Scotland training has been different, and deplorably different.
The tragedy is that this Bill is to be applied to Scotland. Lord Ure described the origins of the Scottish approach many years ago, and I should like to put it on record. He said:For generations the Scots have recognised the liquor trade as a great terror to our people, and that if we were to protect the community against the menaces and the dangers that were inherent in that trade it would require to be placed under continuous control.That was a declaration made many years ago, and that atmosphere and approach have not changed. That was not a bigoted teetotal speech. I do not know whether Lord Ure was a teetotaller, but I am certain he was not a prohibitionist and had no desire to interfere with the liberties of his fellow Scots. But that view was recognised as wise, not only by people who wanted to be teetotallers but by people who wanted to keep the liquor trade itself beyond reproach. Indeed, I understand that that is the considered approach even of the advanced people in this trade today.
102 What was the continuous approach that could possibly be exercised? In one of the debates that took place another distinguished Scotsman, who was a Prime Minister for the party opposite, gave his view and considered judgment, when he said:I do think that anything we can do can be done in one or two directions only. One is disinterested management, the arguments in favour of which seem to be exceedingly strong.That was the purpose of the Act which this Bill now repeals, and while that opinion of Bonar Law was not expressed in regard to Scotland alone, the purpose of my Amendment is to apply it to Scotland alone.
I recognise that the Government, with their majority, have carried the principle of this Bill to repeal the earlier Act. But that does not mean that the arguments for repealing the earlier Act have any validity for Scotland. Indeed, I think the contrary to be the case, because every argument put forward tonight or in earlier debates have been arguments affecting English conditions only.
Therefore, even though the Government have carried out their pledge to repeal the earlier Act as it applied to England, I beg of them, apart altogether from the party conflict that exists on this matter, to allow us to continue our experiment in Scotland to see whether we cannot do something better. In the new Scottish towns they have a chance to create prototypes—if I might so call them from my engineering experience—samples of what could be done to make the habits and customs of taking refreshment in Scotland different from what they have been in the past; to make them something that has not been open for Scots to see from experience in the years gone by.
It is easy to say that we should give the customer what he wants. I think that this House has to think of a better plan than merely catering for what have been the habits of the past. In other words, a part of the idea of the new towns was to create a new environment, and those of us who have studied the sociology of Scotland and England remember the experiment of Robert Owen, in Lanark, by which he so altered the conditions of the people who lived in that area that visitors came from every part of the world, including Russia, to see this remarkable 103 experiment whereby, by changing the environment of men and women, he took them from the sordid conditions in which they had formerly lived and made them into dignified human beings who were the wonder, at that time, of the social world.
In the new towns of today there is an opportunity to make a similar experiment with these places of refreshment. I am glad to say that the people of Scotland have changed for the better in this direction. In the lifetime of the Joint Under-Secretary of State and myself we have seen great changes. I myself have seen people whose whole ambition seemed to be to work, to drink and to sleep and to whom the intervals for meals were irritating necessities in that routine of life. It was really tragic to see men who rushed from their work and never went home till the public houses closed and they were turned out into the streets. The conditions that existed at that time were so bad that everyone is still afraid of the possibility of going back to them.
I feel certain that no one would intentionally create those conditions in a new town. Our fear is that these conditions may be created in a new town if it is simply to be left to the haphazard inspiration of someone to ask for a licence. The person who asks for a licence is concerned with the opportunity of opening up a shop, and it may be that he will not have the capital and necessary backing to make the place decent. He will start from scratch, so to speak, which means that we will have all kinds of crowded conditions. We want to create a condition where the place that is established for mere drinking disappears for ever, and we want to show Scotland that there can be another type of place.
In the past, these places existed, to all intents and purposes only for the sale of drink. We would like to see a situation where the drinking was incidental to the other facilities and not the other facilities merely incidental to the drinking. We want people of varied interests to be able to use houses of entertainment. I think that one of the bad things about drinking even now in Scotland is this. A man who takes a drink may have friends who do not drink. If that man wants to satisfy his thirst he has to cut himself off from his friends and congregate with other people with whom he 104 may not be friendly at all. In other words, the very social life of the country is disturbed by this congregation of people who take a drink and their separation from the people who do not take a drink.
It is quite wrong that a man who wants to have beer with his dinner, or to take some other refreshment, should have to leave his wife, as if he were going to do something shameful. If he can afford to go to an hotel he does not need to do that at all. He can go into the lounge of an hotel, his wife can have tea, and the children can have what they want and there is no shame about it, no indignity about it and no reproach about it.
Obviously, if we are building up a new type of life, in these new towns we have to give the people an opportunity of expressing themselves in a different way. We think that the people who want to have that type of refreshment ought not to be forced to isolate themselves and to go away to some place of which, as it were, they are ashamed.
I recognise that some temperance people think that that would be an inducement for more people to drink. I have always been against the idea that in order to discourage drinking we have to degrade the place in which people drink. I think it is horrible to contemplate that we must continually degrade the circumstances in which people take their refreshment in order to influence other people not to take it.
We have to create conditions where drinking becomes a mere incident in the hospitality afforded by the new towns to all the population of the new towns, and that there should not be any place in the new towns to which people cannot go with some satisfaction. If we could get places of the standard of hotels that is the sort of thing one could accept. The new towns will not have that opportunity if it is left to people just to apply for a licence. I hope that in Scotland an opportunity will be given to the Secretary of State to see that this experiment is carried out to fruition.
One of the advantages of the present law is that the Secretary of State has supervision over it, and he can see even from the point of view of the State experiment that in these new towns this will be carried out in the proper manner. Moreover the House itself will have considerable supervision over the Secretary of 105 State. Once this goes under the conditions of the new Bill, it goes outside the control of this House altogether and becomes a matter for other bodies. With all the best will in the world, these other bodies themselves are to some extent prisoners to the past, and this is an idea for breaking away from the past and making a far better experiment.
The mere drink shops that have existed are not unique to Scotland. In the "Liquor Trades Journal," which is advocating better conditions, I came across an example of one in London. It gives an ideal description, if one may call it such, of the drink shop which exists for no other purpose. It said this:Based on the analysis of measurements taken with a foot rule during peak loads in a London house, each customer has less than 3 square feet to himself, the equivalent of 21 people in a non-corridor railway carriage.That describes the conditions that we want to avoid. I would like to have some guarantee that this will not be allowed in the new towns. So far there has been no such guarantee. I think that we ought to express ourselves as strongly as possible in regard to Scotland that merely because the Government feel that there are some conditions in England that we want to change on account of the pressure of interests that pressure does not exist in Scotland and, therefore, we are not bound to follow them in any way.
If they feel that they must redeem their pledges to some sections of the trade, I appeal to them to leave us in Scotland to experiment on our own lines under the guidance of the Secretary of State, and to see whether the Secretary of State, with the plans which he took over from his predecessor, cannot give an example to Scotland in the building of these new towns and the construction of places of hospitality which will give a lead to something better throughout the whole of Scotland.
We are building new towns and bringing in young population to live in Fife and East Kilbride, and I hope that the Secretary of State will help us to see that in these new towns not only are the houses and factories good places but the hotels and other places of hospitality are worthy of the surroundings in which they are being built. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will see his way to accept this Amendment. If not, we would 106 like to press it upon him with a view to allowing Scottish Members to establish their opinion on this particular point.
§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)
I support my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) in seeking to keep the Scottish new towns out of the Bill. I believe the Joint Under-Secretary took my advice and visited one of the new towns in Scotland a week or two ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Both new towns."] Then the Joint Under-Secretary is improving. I believe I am also correct in saying that at Glenrothes, and maybe also at East Kilbride, he was very much impressed by the new environment which is being created for the people. I was glad to accompany the Joint Under-Secretary on a visit to some of the schools in Fife, and particularly to the new school in Ballingry.
All those new areas have one thing in common; they have been created by public enterprise. The Joint Under-Secretary knows better than I do how long-suffering Fife has been as an industrial area. It was devastated as a result of exploitation by private coal owners for centuries, and it is only now that the people of Fife are getting the amenities of life and the opportunities in life which have so long been their due.
A wonderful social experiment is taking place in Glenrothes. All the houses and schools are being built by public enterprise. The majority of the workers will be working in public enterprises. Glenrothes will be a new mining town, and while only one in eight of the workers will be a miner most of the others will also be engaged in nationalised concerns. At Thornton, which is not very far away, huge sums of money are to be spent on the railway marshalling yards. Glenrothes will house a considerable number of railway workers, and as, presumably, the Government do not intend to denationalise the railways those people will still be working for a nationalised undertaking. The environmental improvement in Glenrothes is wholly due to public enterprise.
It is no exaggeration to say that at least 90 per cent. of the people who will live in Glenrothes are members of the Co-operative movement. They have every reason to be suspicious of private 107 enterprise. Anyone who has been employed in the mining industry or was employed by the railways during the days of private ownership has reason to suspect anything to do with private enterprise, and if a mandate were asked of the people of Glenrothes I am certain that they would all opt for public ownership of public houses. The Corporation itself is against the Bill.
§ Mr. Hamilton
I shall be glad to hear the views of the Joint Under-Secretary on that. I have been informed that the Corporation did not like the principle of the Bill, and I believe that is still its view. I cannot speak for East Kilbride, and the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland), in whose constituency East Kilbride is situated, is apparently not very interested because I do not see him in his place and he was not on the Standing Committee to discuss the matter.
I suggest to the Joint Under-Secretary that the Government have everything to gain by leaving Scotland out of the Bill. It would permit comparisons to be made between public ownership in the new towns in Scotland and private ownership in the new towns in England, which would show which system was efficient and which inefficient. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) would no doubt get his analyst to compare the gravity of the beer in the publicly owned houses in Scotland with that of the beer in the privately owned houses in England and that would show us which was the more efficient system.
The Government believe that private enterprise is more efficient than public enterprise. Here is a chance to prove it. I can see no valid reason why Scotland should not be left out of the Bill. There are only two new towns in Scotland, and I am sure the people of Glenrothes would support the Government if it left Scotland out of the Bill.
§ Mr. Douglas Johnston (Paisley)
Two speakers have advanced certain reasons why Scotland should be left out of the Bill, and I should like to add a third reason. This is an English Bill with a 108 Scottish application Clause. I am conscious that there are sometimes very cogent reasons why there should be one Bill applicable to both Scotland and England, but those reasons have no validity unless three conditions are fulfilled.
The first condition is that the Bill is a lengthy one; the second, that the main provisions of the Bill apply equally to both England and Scotland; and the third, that the application Clause is both simple and short. None of these prerequisites applies to this Bill. The Bill is not lengthy, for it extends only to some nine Clauses in 12 pages. Secondly, the main provision, which is Clause 4, the licensing Clause, has no application whatsoever to Scotland, and for its application requires an entirely new Clause. Thirdly, the application Clause is complex and very long in relation to the length of the Bill, extending over four pages, which means that it is a third of the length of the Bill.
For those reasons, Scotland should be excluded from the operation of the Bill. It is intolerable that those who are concerned with the application of a Measure in Scotland should have to go about with a pair of scissors and a pot of paste to make an English Bill into a Scottish Bill. There is no reason for it. The Government have had ample time and the Scottish Grand Committee was largely unemployed last Session—we could easily have had the Second Reading and the Committee stage before the Scottish Grand Committee. If that had been done, we should have had adequate expression of Scottish opinion. As it is, we have had no expression of Scottish opinion from the other side of the House, except from the Joint Under-Secretary, and we did not have adequate representation in the Committee. These are good reasons for rejecting the application of the Bill to Scotland.
We are coming now to a new Session in which, I take it, there will be a certain amount of legislation. If the conditions which I have laid down are not applicable to that legislation the Secretary of State should in every case insist upon having a separate Scottish Bill. If he cannot get that, he should insist that the Measures be drafted as Scottish Measures with English application Clauses. We should then put an end to the ridiculous position we have here in that this short Bill is 109 quite meaningless because of the difficulties and complexities of the application Clause.
§ Mr. Henderson Stewart
I feel sure the House would agree that the case put by the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) and his colleagues has been put very fairly, reasonably and persuasively. Were it not for what the right hon. Gentleman ultimately wants I would find myself in considerable agreement with his speech. It is the end which he desires with which I cannot agree.
The right hon. Gentleman began his speech—and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) supported him—by deploring that there was not a Scottish Bill dealing with this matter. I can sympathise with that point of view. Often in the House I have complained that Scottish problems are tacked on to English Bills, so that I can begin my reply tonight by understanding the point of view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. But in this matter of new licensing legislation, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, and as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) knows even better, it has not been the custom of this House to introduce separate Scottish Bills. In fact, it has been the reverse. Let me tell the House the facts. There has not been a separate Scottish licensing Measure since 1913, and in the meantime four United Kingdom licensing Acts have been passed.
§ Mr. D. Johnston
But would the Joint Under-Secretary not agree with me that none of those four Measures has made radical alterations such as the radical alteration that is made by Clause 4 of this Bill and the second part of the application Clauses?
§ Mr. Stewart
The hon. and learned Gentleman and I would have to search our memories to be sure that that was a sound statement. I certainly would not like to accept it just now. He is a lawyer and I am not. He ought to know better. I do not know if it would be true that these Acts since 1913 have not substantially altered the position in Scotland. But, if that is a valid argument, why did hon. Gentlemen opposite not insist upon a Scottish Bill when they introduced this great change in 1949.
§ Mr. Woodburn
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is quite a different proposition? The Bill that was introduced in 1949 was not a question of altering the licensing laws; it was a question of establishing new towns. That was an entirely United Kingdom Measure, and the question of licensing was incidental to the establishment of the new towns. This is a rather different proposition. A small section of the 1945 Act has been taken out, and it deals with two separate things that have been in existence for generations.
§ Mr. Stewart
The argument of the hon. and learned Member for Paisley was that where no Scottish Bill was provided in the past it was because there was no drastic change in the law. What I am suggesting is that in 1949 there was a drastic change in the law. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] May I be allowed to put my point? The Act of 1949 proposed that the new towns, which until that moment had been run under private enterprise, should suddenly come under State management. Whether that was right or wrong I am not at the moment arguing, but it was a drastic change of the Scottish licensing laws. If it were right then to regard that as a United Kingdom matter, why is it wrong to regard the repeal of it as a United Kingdom matter? My view is that we are entitled on the precedent established by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to act as we have done.
But it is more than that. What we are considering in this Bill is a simple problem of planning licensing facilities in new towns. I suggest there is not very much difference in the planning of licensing facilities in new towns whether they are in Scotland or in England. The problem is exactly the same, and, therefore, we are entitled to do as we have done.
The right hon. Gentleman next asked, what is the view of Scotland on this Bill. He said, "Who wants this Bill?" The right hon. Gentleman asked me that question on Second Reading, and my reply to him now must be the reply I gave to him then. Where was the demand for the Bill brought forward in 1949? There was no vocal demand, and I say frankly to the House that there has been no very strong public opinion 111 expressed in Scotland one way or the other. It just happens to be the fact, though perhaps it is a pity. Some may deplore it, but it is a fact that, as I told the Committee upstairs, we have had only one direct approach turning down the whole Measure, and that has been from the Rechabites in Shetland. As there has not been any opposition I can only assume that the public of Scotland regard this as a reasonable, sensible Measure.
I am fortified in that view from another direction. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have my friends in the temperance movement. I was brought up in the atmosphere which he understands. I have never understood that the temperance movement in Scotland was in favour of State management. On the contrary, I am quite sure that the Scottish temperance movement—and the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), if he knows anything of the temperance movement in Scotland, will agree with this—has been traditionally opposed to that view.
§ Mr. J. Hudson
Would the hon. Gentleman permit me to say that the temperance movement in Scotland has never been in favour of licensing either?
§ Mr. Stewart
That is a different subject, which I had better leave alone.
There has been no opposition to this Bill from the Scottish churches except for a brief reference to it in a church magazine. As I told the Committee upstairs, the General Assembly at their last meeting were very lukewarm about the whole thing, and, therefore, I am entitled to say that on our understanding of the traditions of Scottish temperance and church opinion we are entitled to do what we are proposing to do in this Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked what was the Scottish approach to this matter. He said that Scottish opinion traditionally was that the public houses in days gone by had certainly led to a great deal of trouble, unhappiness and misery. I agree with that. It is true of the past. I have the clearest and most poignant recollections of my native town, Creiff, on a Saturday night when I was a boy, and what happened then would be regarded as shameful today. All that is past. It does not happen today. There 112 has been an enormous improvement, and we all want to see that continued.
The right hon. Gentleman pleaded very eloquently for better provision in the new towns, and we are completely in accord with him. That is what this Bill intends should be done. We do not intend to do it by State management, which has its virtues—as I saw in the north a week or two ago—nor do we propose to do it by unadulterated private enterprise. We seek in this Bill to apply the advantages of both those systems. The State, in the sense of the corporation, will make a plan and will determine what kind of public house or hotel there is to be and what amenities are to be provided. They will then invite competent hotel or public house people to run the concern.
I have recently seen State-management places in the North of Scotland. I saw several of them, and I thought they were well-run, clean, well-appointed and well-managed; but I must tell the House of the criticism that I found in those areas about those institutions. It was chiefly that here was a monopoly, not only now but for ever and ever, and that there was never going to be any chance of any other kind of person being allowed to run a licensed hotel or establishment. I must report to the House that I found that criticism very widespread in that area. I do not therefore feel entitled to propose an extension of that experiment to other parts of the country.
§ Mr. Woodburn
May I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he is falling into the mistake that his right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House? He is talking about a monopoly of the buildings. The other question which was raised was the monopoly of the type of liquor sold. The complaint, as I understand it, is not against the ownership of the property. Nobody is objecting, even in the new towns in England, to brewers occupying the property. What is objected to is that only one type of beer is to be supplied. The hon. Gentleman has conveyed the impression that there is a monopoly of that kind in Scotland, but I hope that he will make it quite clear that there is no monopoly of beer in the Scottish State-managed public houses, that there is no single liquor 113 supplied, and that there is entire freedom for the customer to get what he wants when he goes to this kind of public house.
§ Mr. Stewart
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was not thinking of the beer, or of the supplies, or anything of that sort. I was saying that in Cromarty and Gretna only the Secretary of State for Scotland can manage licensed public houses and hotels and that that system—that complete monopoly—was not regarded favourably by the local Scottish people. That is all that I was saying. Nobody in this House, on that side or on this, has or had any mandate to extend the Carlisle experiment of State management further than it now exists, and we have no right to propose such a step.
§ Mr. Stewart
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was here at the first. He has probably just arrived. I have already explained—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. Hale
On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has said that I probably have only just arrived, whereas it is evident to everybody, except to himself, that I spoke on the last Amendment. I wanted to ask what was mandatory about the Bill, since there was nothing in the Conservative Party programme which suggested the Bill at all.
§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a point of order. I was merely concerned that two hon. Gentlemen should not be on their feet at the some time.
§ Mr. Stewart
If the hon. Gentleman had been present when I started speaking he would have heard the answer which I sought to give to that very point, and I do not think the House would wish me to repeat it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to look at it in HANSARD tomorrow.
We do not feel that we have any mandate for extending the Carlisle experiment, attractive as that experiment is. We have said that there are virtues in that experiment, but there are also virtues in the private enterprise management of hotels. I have said that nationalised hotels in the North were well-managed; but they are no more so 114 than other well-managed hotels in Scotland. There is also virtue in an individual or in a company running a well-managed hotel or public house.
What we want to do is to marry these two systems. I venture to put to hon. Gentlemen opposite the point that this is another experiment that we are trying, this blending of the two systems. Why not give it an opportunity to express itself in the new towns, where the committees will be composed of representatives from the two important interests? The licensing authorities will be equally represented with the corporations and all the members of the joint committee will be, in a sense, representatives of public opinion. We hope that they will all be men and women of sense and experience. The chairmen of these committees—this point was put to me by the East Kilbride Corporation—will, we hope, be men of outstanding position and independence of mind.
In such an atmosphere there will be every incentive for the committees to bring about just that substantial, striking advance in the whole atmosphere of public houses and hotels which the right hon. Gentleman and I both wish to see. I therefore ask him to give us an opportunity to try this experiment. He said that his fear was of a haphazard inspiration on the part of somebody or other to open a public house. I do not think it can be so, because the place of the house, the kind of house and the amenities and services to be provided in the house, are to be laid down as a condition of the tenancy. It may be that a corporation, such as Glenrothes, might even see fit to build a public house or a hotel and let it out to a suitable person. We are sure that they will be public spirited enough to see that the right man is chosen.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was against the kind of place where we could get drink and drink only. No doubt he meant alcoholic drink. He wanted public houses where people could get other drinks and refreshments. I found public houses in the State management area in the North that did just that. There were ordinary bars where customers could get tea and coffee if they wanted them. I was very pleased to find them. There was also, in the Dingwall area, one bar where there was nothing but alcoholic drink, and I was told that that one bar was the most 115 popular in the town and that when it was opened it was crushed and crammed by people as intensively as the bar which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Why was that? Because the State management in the area found there was a demand for that kind of thing as well as for the tea, coffee and cocoa kind of drink in other houses. Are we to say that we shall lay down to the public what they shall and shall not have to drink? Is it not better to leave the joint committee to say, "Let us provide for all tastes, provided conditions are attractive"?
§ Mr. Woodburn
I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but the House ought to have a correct picture. I think he will agree that the other State-management places he is talking about had been in existence and were taken over, and had the same difficulties as other people who want to recondition premises in that they were hampered by all kinds of restrictions. While what he says is true, we must remember that such conditions are quite different from those in the new towns, where we shall create entirely new conditions.
I am not holding up State management as necessarily perfect, and I have criticised some of them myself in times gone by and had them improved. No doubt they would be improved if the Secretary of State could get permission to improve them from the Ministry of Works. However, that has nothing to do with the principle of starting afresh and creating an entirely new example, and I hope he will not say that merely because the people had these habits in the past, they will have them in the future.
§ Mr. Speaker
I ought to call the attention of the House to the fact that we are on the Report stage. We have now had several interventions from the right hon. Gentleman. I hope hon. Members will remember this and will confine themselves to one speech except by leave of the House.
§ Mr. Stewart
I quite see the point of the right hon. Gentleman. It is a fair interruption, but I was endeavouring to point out to the House that the tastes of the public everywhere are not the same, and that while in one part of the same town a public house may find it worth while to provide a lot of other services, 116 in another part they may not be so popular. I offered as an example what was happening in Dingwall and I gave the House examples on the Committee stage of places in Carlisle and elsewhere where the State management officials had endeavoured to press the sale in certain areas of things other than alcoholic drink and had experienced the greatest difficulty. The public is a strange animal. It varies from place to place, and I only ask that we recognise that fact.
The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) and I made a pleasant, friendly visit to some Fife schools the other day. I very much enjoyed having him with me. That brings me to the case of Glenrothes. The hon. Gentleman has claimed tonight, as he claimed earlier, that if a vote could be taken at Glenrothes the people there would be against this Measure. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to hold that view if he likes. All I say is that he has no proof that that view is the right one because no attempt has been made to go from house to house and find out. In any case the Glenrothes population is now only a fraction of what it will be later on, so a canvass would not help us.
Nor do I think the hon. Gentleman would be right in suggesting that because in Glenrothes most of the people talked about are now working in some kind of nationalised industry therefore the nationalised control of the public houses is a proper thing. In East Kilbride it is not so. There we have in the Rolls Royce firm a brilliant example of private enterprise, a vast concern employing perhaps thousands of workers. So one cannot lay down rules of that kind.
I have met both the corporations. They are not opposed to this Bill. They have never expressed direct opposition to the Bill, although East Kilbride expressed direct opposition in 1949 to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. They have not expressed direct opposition to this one, although they have made certain comments and raised certain difficulties. I think I can assure the hon. Member for Fife, West, that we have met all the objections of the Scottish corporations and therefore feel entitled to go ahead.
I ask the House to give this new enlightened experiment a chance. Possibly it may prove in the course of years to be not as good as we here think it should 117 be, but at any rate it has all the makings of being a success. It combines the advantages of both systems and, because of that, I find it impossible to accept the suggestion that Scotland should be left out of this Bill. In fact, I believe it
§ will be of great advantage to Scotland to be in it.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 263.121
|Division No. 232.]||AYES||[7.45 p.m.|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Glanville, James||Murray, J. D.|
|Adams, Richard||Gooch, E. G.||Nally, W.|
|Albu, A. H.||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)||Oldfield, W. H.|
|Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)||Grey, C. F.||Oliver, G. H.|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Orbach, M.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Oswald, T.|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Griffiths, William (Exchange)||Padley, W. E.|
|Baird, J.||Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||Paget, R. T.|
|Balfour, A.||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.||Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)|
|Bartley, P.||Hamilton, W. W.||Pannell, Charles|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Hardy, E. A.||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Bence, C. R.||Hargreaves, A.||Parker, J.|
|Benson, G.||Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)||Paton, J.|
|Beswick, F.||Hastings, S.||Pearson, A.|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Hayman, F. H.||Peart, T. F.|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Plummer, Sir Leslie|
|Blackburn, F.||Hobson, C. R.||Poole, C. C.|
|Boardman, H.||Holman, P.||Popplewell, E.|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Houghton, Douglas||Porter, G.|
|Bowden, H. W.||Hubbard, T. F.||Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)|
|Bowles, F. G.||Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Proctor, W. T.|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Pryde, D. J.|
|Brockway, A. F.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Rankin, John|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Reeves, J.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Reid, Thomas (Swindon)|
|Burke, W. A.||Janner, B.||Reid, William (Camlachie)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Rhodes, H.|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)||Richards, R.|
|Carmichael, J.||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)|
|Champion, A. J.||Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Clunie, J.||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Ross, William|
|Coldrick, W.||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Royle, C.|
|Collick, P. H.||Keenan, W.||Schcfield, S. (Barnsley)|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Kenyon, C.||Shackleton, E. A. A.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Crossman, R. H. S||King, Dr. H. M.||Shurmer, P. L. E.|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Kinley, J.||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)|
|Daines, P.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon H.||Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Slater, J.|
|Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)||Lewis, Arthur||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Lindgren, G. S.||Snow, J. W.|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Logan, D. G.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Deer, G.||MacColl, J. E.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Delargy, H. J.||McGhee, H. G.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Dodds, N. N.||McInnes, J.||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)|
|Donnelly, D. L.||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Stross, Dr. Barnett|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||McLeavy, F.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Swingler, S. T.|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Edelman, M.||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Edwards, John (Brighouse)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Manuel, A, C.||Thomas, David (Aberdare)|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Mellish, R. J.||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Fernyhough, E.||Messer, F.||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Fienburgh, W.||Mikardo, Ian||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Finch, H. J.||Mitchison, G. R.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)||Monslow, W.||Timmons, J.|
|Follick, M.||Moody, A. S.||Tomney, F.|
|Foot, M. M.||Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Forman, J. C.||Morley, R.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Viant, S. P.|
|Freeman, John (Watford)||Mort, D. L.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Freeman, Peter (Newport)||Moyle, A.||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C)|
|Gibson, C. W||Mulley, F. W||Weitzman, D.|
|Wells, Perey (Faversham)||Wilkins, W. A.||Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)|
|Wells, William (Walsall)||Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|West, D. G.||Williams, David (Neath)||Yates, V. F.|
|Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)||Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)||Mr. Hannan and Mr. Holmes.|
|Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Fisher, Nigel||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.||McAdden, S. J.|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Foster, John||McCallum, Major D.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.||Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell||Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)|
|Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)||McKibbin, A. J.|
|Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)||Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)|
|Baker, P. A. D.||Gammans, L. D.||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Garner-Evans, E. H.||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarly)|
|Baldwin, A. E.||George, Rt. Hon Maj. G. Lloyd||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)|
|Banks, Col. C.||Godber, J. B.||Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)|
|Barber, Anthony||Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horneastle)|
|Barlow, Sir John||Gough, C. F. H||Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.|
|Beach, Maj. Hicks||Gower, H. R.||Markham, Major S. F|
|Beamish, Maj. Tufton||Graham, Sir Fergus||Marlowe, A. A. H.|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Gridley, Sir Arnold||Marples, A. E.|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)|
|Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)||Maude, Angus|
|Bennett, William (Woodside)||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Maudlins, R.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Maydon, Lt -Comdr S. L. C.|
|Birch, Nigel||Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)||Medlicott, Brig. F.|
|Bishop, F. P.||Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Mellor, Sir John|
|Black, C. W.||Harvie-Watt, Sir George||Molson, A. H. E.|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Hay, John||Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter|
|Bossom, A. C.||Heald, Sir Lionel||Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas|
|Bowen, E. R.||Heath, Edward||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Henderson, John (Catheart)||Nabarro, G. D. N.|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Higgs, J. M. C.||Nicholls, Harmar|
|Brains, B. R.||Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Noble, Cmdr, A. H. P.|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Nugent, G. R. H.|
|Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Hirst, Geoffrey||Odey, G. W.|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Holland-Martin, C. J.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.|
|Browne, Jack (Govan)||Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.||Holt, A. F.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)|
|Bullard, D. G.||Hope, Lord John||Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Wetton-supar-Mare)|
|Bullock, Capt. M||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Osborne, C.|
|Bullus, Wins Commander E. E||Horobin, I. M.||Partridge, E.|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Perkins, W. R. D.|
|Carson, Hon. E.||Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Peto, Brig, C. H. M.|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.||Peyton, J. W. W.|
|Channon, H.||Hurd, A. R.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)||Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E 'b' rgh W.)||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.||Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)||Price, Henry (Lewitham, W.)|
|Cole, Norman||Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.|
|Colegate, W. A.||Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.||Raikes, H. V.|
|Conant, Maj. R. J, E.||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Rayner, Brig, R.|
|Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert||Jennings, R.||Redmayne, M.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Remnant, Hon. P.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Jones, A. (Hall Green)||Roberts, Peter (Heeley)|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Robertson, Sir David|
|Crouch, R. F.||Kaberry, D.||Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Keeling, Sir Edward||Robson-Brown, W.|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Lambert, Hon. G.||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Deedes, W. F.||Lambton, Viscount||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Digby, S. Wingfield||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Russell, R. S.|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Langford-Holt, J. A.||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.||Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Donnar, P. W.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H||Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.|
|Doughty, C. J. A.||Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)||Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas|
|Drayson, G. B.||Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.||Schoneld, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)|
|Drewe, G.||Lindsay, Martin||Scott, R. Donald|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)||Linstead, H. N.||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Shepherd, William|
|Duthie, W. S.||Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Low, A. R. W.||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter|
|Erroll, F. J.||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Fell, A.||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)||Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)|
|Finlay, Graeme||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)|
|Snadden, W. McN.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Soames, Capt. C.||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Spearman, A. C. M.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)||Watkinson, H. A.|
|Speir, R. M.||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.||Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)|
|Stevens, G. P.||Tilney, John||Wellwood, W.|
|Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)||Touche, Sir Gordon||White, Baker (Canterbury)|
|Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)||Turner, H. F. L.||Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)|
|Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.||Turton, R. H.||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Storey, S.||Tweedsmuir, Lady||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)||Vane, V. M. F.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Studholme, H. G.||Wade, D. W.|
|Sutcliffe, H.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Taylor, William (Bradlord, N.)||Walker-Smith, D. C.||Mr. Vosper and Mr. Oakshett.|
|Teeling, W.||Ward, Hon George (Worcester)|
Question put, and agreed to.