Clause 1.—(POWER TO AUTHORISE GRANT OF RETAILERS' EXCISE ON-LICENCES FOR SEAMEN'S CANTEENS.) (Hansard, 28 January 1954)

§ The Chairman
I think that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we take the first two Amendments together as they are alternative Amendments.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Welsh Affairs (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe)
I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), but it might help the Committee if I tell him that I am prepared to accept his first Amendment, after consultation with the Merchant Navy Welfare Board. I am afraid that I cannot accept the second Amendment, which raises some technical difficulties; but if it is any help to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee, I am prepared to accept the first Amendment.

§ Mr. Hastings
In thanking the Minister for accepting the first Amendment, may I deal with the second Amendment and put the case for it?

§ Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)
Will it be in order, Sir Charles, to get the acceptance of the first Amendment later on?

§ The Chairman
If the first Amendment is agreed to, I shall not call the second; they are alternative Amendments.

§ Mr. Hastings
I have put my name down to two Amendments, but they are not alternative Amendments. One has been accepted by the Minister, and I am very grateful to him for doing so. He clearly sees the reason for the first Amendment. I should like, with your 1998 permission, Sir Charles, now to put the case for the second Amendment, in the hope that I may induce the Minister to accept that as well.

§ The Chairman
I was under the misapprehension that they were alternative Amendments. Had I known that the second Amendment was a different one, I should not have selected it.

§ Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)
May I take it that in what the Home Secretary said he was also giving an opinion on behalf of Scotland and its licensing laws?

§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
I was telling the Committee that I was prepared to accept the first Amendment, and I thought it only fair to tell the Committee, at the same time, that I was not prepared to accept the second Amendment. That is the position of the Government as a whole.

§ Mr. Manuel
Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman consulted the Scottish Minister on this point?

§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
I have consulted the Scottish Minister on this question.

§ Mr. Ede (South Shields)
On a point of order. I suggest that these are not necessarily alternative Amendments. It would be possible to have consultation with the Merchant Navy Welfare Board with regard to the national position, but with regard to the local position, it might be advisable to have consultation with the local licensing authority. If you rule. Sir Charles, that they must be taken as alternative Amendments, that will be the end of the matter, but I suggest it would be quite possible to consult both the bodies. I rather gathered that the Home Secretary's objection was on some technical ground—difficulties that may be caused—but I do not know whether that could not have been remedied by some consequential Amendment.

§ The Chairman
They are drafted as alternatives because, if they were both accepted, they would not make sense; it would not be English.

§ Mr. Hastings
It is not clear to me that they will not make sense, because the Merchant Navy Welfare Board will be able to give their opinion, knowing, of course, the character of the port and 1999 the conditions of the ships that arrive there, as to the need for such a canteen. On the other hand, the local licensing authority will know much more about the possible alternatives locally, and, if it is in order, I should like to argue in favour of consultation with the local licensing authority. Perhaps I may continue on those lines, Sir Charles?

§ The Chairman
The position seems to be rather difficult. I suggested at the beginning that these were two alternative Amendments and not difficult to discuss together. Nobody said that I was wrong. If we accept the first Amendment, the second one is out of order.

§ Mr. J. Hudson
If the first Amendment is not accepted now and my hon. Friend goes on to move the second Amendment, the Home Secretary will not be able to proceed with the acceptance of the first Amendment which he has promised. I am only suggesting that, at this stage, my hon. Friend may be allowed to move both Amendments, as he really wants to do.

§ The Chairman
I should like to allow him to do so but, under the rules, he can only move one Amendment at a time. We can discuss the Amendments together, but he can only move one at a time.

§ Mr. Hastings
I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, at the end, to insert: after consultation with the Merchant Navy Welfare Board. I think that it is unnecessary to detain the House on this first Amendment be cause, in the debate on the Second Reading, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department made the case very clear. He put the case more clearly than I can do for the first of these Amendments. He said that, in fact, the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation would consult with the Merchant Navy Welfare Board. Therefore, I think that it is unnecessary with regard to these Amendments to say more on that subject. If I am in order in moving the two Amendments together—

§ The Chairman
I thought that I had made it clear that one can only have one Amendment at a time. The two can be 2000 discussed together. I shall not select the second Amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas Tooth)
I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at end, insert: hold a retailer's on-licence to. This is a Privilege Amendment.

§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after "canteen," insert: and an excise licence may be granted to him accordingly notwithstanding that he does not hold a justices' licence or certificate. This is a Privilege Amendment.

§ Mr. Manuel
This is my only opportunity, I think, to raise the point that I tried to make with the Home Secretary. I was complaining that a Scottish Minister was not present, and I am pleased now to see that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has arrived.
I draw to the attention particularly of the Joint Under-Secretary, and possibly, also, of the Home Secretary, that paragraph (8) of Defence Regulation 60AA contains these words: This Regulation shall, in its application to Scotland, have effect subject to the following modifications: —
(a) for the reference to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State for Scotland.…"
Therefore the Bill, in effect, waters down Regulation 60AA in so far as there is to be less consultation in Scotland before a licence would be granted in this way. It is bad enough that the local licensing bench is not to be consulted, but the definite commitment, in Regulation 60AA, upon the Minister of Transport or any other Minister to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland is not in the Bill. The position, therefore, is weakened to that extent.
I wonder whether the Home Secretary or the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland could give an undertaking that 2001 when it is proposed to do something in connection with the issue of a licence for a canteen in Scotland, the Secretary of Stale ought to be consulted. This assurance would, at least, restore the position that we had under the war-time Regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy), who is concerned about the point, is very sorry that he is not here today. He has another important engagement which precludes his attendance. Both he and I were to raise this question, and I promised him that I would do so in his absence.

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart)
I quite understand the point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). It is one with which all Scottish Members have sympathy. As the hon. Member said, the wartime Regulation which is now in existence provides for a certain amount of discussion, rather than consultation, on the details. Under the provisions of the Bill, it is proposed that the Minister of Transport should be the Minister responsible for saying whether there should be a new canteen at, say, Dundee, Leith, or wherever it might be.

§ Mr. Manuel
Paragraph 1 of Regulation 60AA uses the words "as may be agreed" in reference to the Home Secretary. The part which I quoted substitutes the Secretary of State for Scotland for the Home Secretary as far as Scotland is concerned.

§ Mr. Stewart
It is true that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary were both to be in the discussion of details. Under the Bill, as the hon. Member knows, it is intended that the Minister of Transport should continue, as now, to be the person who says whether the seamen by and large need a new canteen here, there, or somewhere else. This general proposition was not disputed on Second Reading.
I think we all recognise that this is not a matter for the local people of Glasgow, Leith, North Shields or anywhere else. We are dealing with a body of men who move around the world, from port to port. We all think that the Minister of Transport is the Minister who is recognised as being the guardian of the seamen and, therefore, best qualified and most authorised to look after their particular needs. 2002 The hon. Member says that in considering whether there should be a new canteen at, say, North Shields or somewhere in Scotland or Wales, it is reasonable that the Minister of Transport should be in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Home Secretary. We do not dispute that at all.
As I emphasised in my reply on Second Reading, the Minister of Transport is answerable in Parliament for the welfare of seamen. He is best able, therefore, with the advice of the Merchant Navy Welfare Board, to assess their need for licensed canteens. The Committee may rest assured, however, that before issuing a certificate under the Bill for any new canteen, the Minister of Transport will consult the Home Secretary, if the proposed canteen is to be located in England or Wales, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, if it is to be located in Scotland. That is an undertaking which we give to the Committee, and I hope that in the circumstances the hon. Member may be satisfied.

§ Mr. Manuel
That meets the point.