HC Deb 06 June 1967 vol 747 cc824-31

Question proposed, That this be the Eighth Schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

I have three questions on Schedule 8. Paragraph 13 provides that nothing in the Schedule or in the Act of 1959 as amended will make it unlawful to traffick in exciseable liquor in a theatre erected before 1st January, 1904, in Scotland. Can the Financial Secretary say specifically why he feels that this provision should be brought back into Scottish legislation? I have never been able to understand why theatres built before 1st January, 1904, should be exempt from these provisions.

My second question relates to veto polls. As the Chancellor may be aware, in Scotland we have a long-standing legal tradition whereby residents in an area can decide to have a veto poll and have all the licensed premises removed from that area. The Cathcart ward in my constituency is as large as some Parliamentary constituencies and yet does not have a public house or an off-licence or a hotel, because we have had such a veto poll. What would be the position if in such an area there were a theatre erected before 1st January, 1904? What would be the position if it were voted to have a "dry" area, in which case there would be no licensed premises, and what would be the position if there were a limitation resolution limiting the number of licences to be operated in the area?

My third question relates to trafficking in liquor in railway carriages and aircraft. It appears that there is now a difference in the laws of Scotland and England. Now that we have so many aircraft travelling between Scotland and England over a period of more than one day, commencing at 11 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. in one country, and ending on the next calendar day in the other country, we have a problem. It would appear, according to the law, that it is legal to sell liquor on a railway carriage or aircraft which is leaving England for Scotland over a period of more than one day and travelling over midnight. On the other hand, if one leaves Scotland at 11.50 p.m. to travel to England, one cannot participate in the trafficking of liquor in that aircraft, railway carriage or ship.

These are important points. Some hon. Members opposite think that they are a little funny. They may be to them, but the point is that we are daily passing legislation which makes nonsense of everything practical and sensible, and it is about time that we had a real explanation of why the Government feel that it is important to take up space in this Finance Bill to carry out these particular points, which I am afraid, in some cases do not make sense and in other conflict with the existing law and practice.

Mr. MacDermot

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has raised some rather abstruse points relating to the social law as it applies in Scotland. In general, the object of these provisions is to make no alteration in the provisions of the social law. In the past, some of them, for reasons of convenience have been attached to provisions relating to Excise duty. In general, what we are doing in this Schedule is to keep alive and preserve the effect of the existing provisions even though the liability for the Excise duty is not being retained.

I am afraid that I am not in a position to inform the hon. Member what the reason is for the distinction between theatres erected before 1904 and those erected afterwards, but I am sure that there was some very good and valid reason for it. Whatever it is, if it needs to be altered, that is a matter which the hon. Member should take up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

I must say that I am shattered at the profundity of the ignorance of the Finance Secretary, that he cannot provide the answer to my hon. Friend's very reasonable and, I should have thought, entirely foreseeable question as to the reason for this particular treatment of trafficking in exciseable liquors in theatres built before 1904.

We appreciate that the Financial Secretary has a great deal to think about, and perhaps he may be able to provide my hon. Friend with an answer at some other time. I have a more general point to put. It is useful to put it on this Schedule, although it would apply to a number of the other Schedules and provisions which we have accepted. We have a number of provisions in the Bill which amend in a great many cases provisions of the Customs and Excise Act and other legislation. For instance, we were discussing the Finance Act, 1959, a moment ago in a variety of detail. It will be extremely difficult as matters now stand, for anyone who has to administer the law, because he will have to look, not only at the original Act, but also at the large number of amending provisions which we now have in these Schedules.

This was the pattern of our legislation which was growing up more and more in the 1920s and 1930s. Although neither he nor I were in the House at the time. the Financial Secretary will remember that the then Member for Twickenham, a Captain Keeling, with a number of his hon. and right hon. Friends, wrote a memorandum to the then Prime Minister, Mr. Chamberlain, in which they said that really this was not good enough, how on earth was anyone to understand legislation which was by reference, as so often it is?

They asked if the Prime Minister could not give instructions to the draftsmen to do something about it. Mr. Chamberlain made a statement in the House in which he said that he accepted the criticism and that he had given instructions to Parliamentary Counsel to include a Schedule at the end of such Bills, where the circumstances fairly warranted it, setting out the provisions of the legislation as amended.

Such Schedules have come to be known as "Keeling Schedules". They are referred to in Erskine May and they suffer from a number of disabilities in the sense that one cannot seek to amend a Keeling Schedule except as consequential to some other Amendment in the Bill. This would appear to be entirely right. These Amendments to the Customs and Excise Act appear to be legislation which are crying out for the application of a Keeling Schedule, for additional Schedules to this Finance Bill, setting out the Customs and Excise Act as amended by the provisions of this Schedule.

This is purely a matter not of drafting but of mechanics. I would not have thought that it would be beyond the abilities of the Chancellor's Department or the Parliamentary Counsel to draft Keeling Schedules that would deal with the Sections of the Customs and Excise Act which we have been considering and to include them in this Bill in time for consideration on Report.

There are a very large number of Amendments here. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) counted, I think, 22 references to other Sections in one Section of the Bill. This adds enormously to the complexity and the difficulties of those who have to administer the legislation. A Keeling Schedule setting out the provisions as amended would be a great simplification, and I would be grateful if the Financial Secretary would undertake to look at the possibility of doing this so that, if necessary, the Gov- ernment could introduce the Schedules as an Amendment on Report.

It would be right to say that the Schedules, if amended, should not be amended by further amendments unless it was consequential to Amendments in the Bill as we now have it, in which case it does not seem that there would be any great Parliamentary time lost. It would be a great convenience and I hope that the Financial Secretary will look at this with some sympathy.

Mr. Peyton

While I do not share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on temperance, nevertheless I do sympathise with him in his request for some information about paragraph 14 of this Schedule. I rarely practise and it does not worry me or a lot of people besides but I wonder if it is a good thing that Parliament should be asked to digest this sort of legislation when no one can justify it. The paragraph that I find most offensive, and I make no apology for raising this, is paragraph 15 of the Eighth Schedule. We get into a terribly bad, sloppy habit, and successive Governments must shoulder their share of the blame for this. Paragraph 15 of this Bill reads: In Schedule 3, in the paragraph beginning 'Does the applicant hold', for the words 'an excise licence for the sale of exciseable liquor' there shall be substituted the words 'a certificate under the Licensing (Scotland) Act. 1959, or a licence under Part III of that Act'; and for the words 'that licence' there shall be substituted 'that certificate or, as the case may be, that licence'; and, in the paragraph beginning 'Has the applicant any interest', for the words 'an excise licence for the sale of exciseable liquor' there shall be substituted the words 'a certificate under the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959 or a licence under Part III of that Act', and for the words 'a certificate' there shall be substituted the words 'such a certificate or licence'. By any standards of judgment that really is awful—terrible! I have no idea what a Keeling Schedule is—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman will not cut my speech short by that sort of observation. Has the Chancellor anything to say, because I will be glad to give way?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan)

I do not expect to have any influence at all with the hon. Gentleman about anything—either about the length or the content of his speech. I am delighted that I have no control over its content.

Mr. Peyton

The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, a master of incivility without effort. Sitting on the Treasury Bench and being responsible for the handling of the Finance Bill, his timing is not always as good as it ought to be. We have made tremendously rapid progress with the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has got more than four Clauses and a large number of Schedules in next to no time. This kind of progress has never been made on a Finance Bill before.

5.0 p.m.

I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does himself justice or his cause any good when he fails to listen to arguments which are put forward seriously. I find words of this sort in Acts of Parliament quite intolerable. I have said for years that the sort of legislation which Parliament countenances in Finance Bill after Finance Bill is quite intolerable. I have said this no matter which party has been in power. This is a bad habit, and so far as possible verbal monstrosities of this sort should be kept out of legislation.

Their Lordships, sitting as a Court of Appeal, have had occasion several times recently to comment adversely and harshly on the verbiage which finds its way into Finance Bills. I hope that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Financial Secretary will be tempted to dismiss this matter as being of no account. We should all begin to set our faces against obscurity in legislation, particularly financial legislation.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

I apologise for taking up the time of the Committee, but I wish to make only two brief points and to ask two questions of the Financial Secretary. He failed completely even to try to answer any of the points which I made in all seriousness. It seems that he has not studied the matter at all. The Government have failed to take the obvious precaution of having a Scottish Minister present to comment on the points, although we have the presence of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), who takes great interest in these matters.

The two points which I wish to make completely explode what the Minister said. He stated that there was no basic change in the law and that the Government have tried not to alter it and to make sure that, even though it may be false and wrong, it is the same as it always was. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the 1959 Act, in which he will see two things. First, the Act did not affect the exemptions from the requirement to take out a certificate conferred on proprietors of theatres built before 1904. The Schedule provides that nothing in the Act will make unlawful trafficking in excisable liquor in a theatre erected before 1st January 1904". This is a basic difference in licensing law. The 1959 Act provides that nothing in it will affect the exemptions from the requirement to take out a certificate in respect of trafficking in liquor in aircraft, ships and railway carriages. But Schedule 8 of the Bill refers specifically to not making unlawful trafficking in liquor in vessels, when there is a journey on the same day—that is a major change— or, as the case may be, if the railway passenger vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers can be supplied with food". Obviously, this is a change which will affect people who are not travelling on the same day. When the Government propose a change like this, the least they can do is to give us the reason for it.

Mr. MacDermot

With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Schedule continue the present effect of the exemption of seamen's canteens and theatres erected before 1904 from the requirement to hold a certificate for the sale of intoxicating liquor granted by a licensing court. Paragraph 14 continues the effect for passenger aircraft and vessels and railway passenger vehicles of the existing exemption from holding a certificate contained in the Customs and Excise Act. The Schedule amends the 1959 and 1962 Acts. Perhaps the provisions to which he is referring and which he cannot find in the 1959 Act are to be found in the 1962 Act. I will study carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said. If anything which I have assured him about is inaccurate, I undertake to send him a full explanation.

I will look at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) on Keeling Schedules and see whether it would be for the general convenience to adopt that procedure in this case. He suggested that we might reproduce the Customs and Excise Act as amended. Since the Act has over 250 pages, I do not think that that would be a satisfactory solution. Since we are dealing with a number of provisions scattered over a number of different Acts, I am not sure whether a Keeling Schedule would greatly simplify the task of those who have to work the Act. However, I will consider the point.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.