§ The Lord AdvocateI beg to move, in page 2, line 2, after "which", to insert "(i)".
This is a paving Amendment for the Amendments in lines 4, 7, 15 and 20.
§ The Lord AdvocateYes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
This is a matter of tightening up. The first three of the Amendments relate to the grant of restaurant certificates and the last two to restricted hotel certificates. That are designed to meet an undertaking given in Committee in regard to what I might call the fish and chip operators.
1458 I agree that it is undesirable that a certificate should be granted to premises which mainly cater for light meals. The Amendments ensure that the primary purpose of a restaurant or restricted hotel must be catering for main meals. If the main purpose of an establishment is merely a fish and chip business, it will not get either a restaurant certificate of the new type or a restricted hotel certificate.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made:In page 2, line 4, leave out from "providing" to "for" in line 6 and insert "meals".
§
In line 7, leave out "and which" and insert:
(ii) so far as they are used, or intended to be used, for the said purpose, are principally used, or intended to be used, for providing the
1459
customary main meal at midday or in the evening, or both; and
(iii).
§ In line 15, after "which", insert "(i)".
§
In line 20, leave out "and which" and insert:
(ii) so far as it is used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of providing meals to persons who are not residing there, is principally used, or intended to be used, for providing the customary main meal at midday or in the evening, or both; and
(iii).—[The Lord Advocate.]
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ The Lord AdvocateI beg to move, in page 2, line 30, to leave out from "or" to "for" in line 34, and to insert:
by a private friend of such a person who is bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person;(iii) to supply exciseable liquor in those premises to any private friends of a person residing there who are bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person".
§ This Amendment, again, is to implement an undertaking given in Committee. I agree that the Clause as it stands is not very well drafted. I take full responsibility for that. This Amendment is designed to ensure that anybody reading the Measure has at least a reasonable chance of understanding what it means. It splits up the subsection and makes clear who is to pay for the drink. There was some difficulty as to which person was which, as the Clause stood. This Amendment makes it perfectly clear that the person who has to pay is the resident and not the guest. This is purely a clarifying Amendment and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 38 leave out from "or" to "with" in line 39 and insert:
by a private friend of such a person who is bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person".—[The Lord Advocate.]
Amendment proposed:In page 2, line 39, leave out "with" and insert "as an ancillary to."—[Mr. Brooman-White.]
§ Mr. Brooman-WhiteCertainly.
This Amendment, also, is to meet an undertaking given in Committee. Some 1460 hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), were concerned that when drink is provided with a picnic lunch to be taken away by a resident in an hotel, either on weekdays or on Sundays, it might be possible for that to be done in such a way that only a very small lunch would be taken away with a very large quantity of drink. We thought it inherently improbable, but, to meet any apprehensions, we propose inserting this phrase, which we have used throughout the Bill in relation to other meals, in order to make certain that the drink provided in those circumstances shall be in due proportion to the amount of food taken away for a picnic.
§ Mr. RossMay I express my thanks to the Under-Secretary for his solicitude in meeting our unjustified suspicions about this?
§ Amendment agreed to.