HC Deb 11 May 1959 vol 605 cc916-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Ede

I want to ask a question about the Licensing Act, 1953, which is alluded to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Schedule. Will a spokesman from the Treasury Bench give us an absolute assurance that no alteration is made in the Licensing Act which affects in any way the powers of the licensing justices when they consider applications for a licence or consider any accusation made against a licensee during the year? Can we have an assurance that those powers are not affected by the Bill, except by the decision which the Committee has just made on Clause 5?

Mr. Erroll

I think I can give the assurance for which the right hon. Gentleman asks. It is not easy to follow exactly what he has in mind. This part of the Second Schedule deals with the compensation fund, which is a quite separate matter from the monopoly value which we were discussing a short time ago. I do not think that the question of payments from the compensation fund or the fixing of the level of compensation charges comes into the question of the licensing of any premises and the granting of licences.

Mr. Ede

Could we not have a representative of the Home Office here to deal with a purely Home Office matter?

Mr. Redhead

I want to impress upon the Chancellor that this matter of licensing regulations and laws is taken exceedingly seriously by licensing justices. No one would doubt that this is a very technical subject and that it is wrapped up in many difficult legal points. I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor can offer me some assurance that in making the provisions which have prompted the questions put to him, and the fears expressed lest there should be any interference with the powers of licensing justices in the consequential amendments to the Schedule, he has taken steps to consult the Magistrates' Association or any other competent body which can bring to bear practical experience of the matter and advise him, having taken note of his policy, with which I recognise they would not wish to interfere. I think that that opinion should have been sought in framing legislation to give effect to this policy.

Mr. Amory

The answer is that these Clauses affect the amount of the payments and in no way whatever the powers. Such consultations as there were were limited to those concerned with the amounts of the payments.

Mr. Redhead

Nevertheless, does not the Chancellor feel that in a matter of this kind, particularly in view of the dubiety expressed in the Committee by hon. Members who have considerable experience of the licensing laws, it would have been well to have obviated the possibility of confusion among licensing justices, when they came to administer these matters in future, by having at least apprised them of the changes and made clear, before legislation was introduced, there was no interference with their powers? Otherwise, I can foresee possibilities of confusion in their minds in the exercise of their important statutory duties.

Mr. Amory

I do not think so. If there had been any question whatever of any alteration or interference with powers, then the kind of consultation to which the hon. Gentleman referred would have been appropriate and would have been taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.