APPEALS TO SHERIFF (Hansard, 27 July 1976)

§ Mr. Millan
I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 27, line 18, at end insert: or in a case where reasons for a decision have been given under section 19(2) of this Act, within 14 days from the date of receipt of those reasons, which shall be presumed to have been received on the day after the date on which they were posted, except that in the case of reasons posted on a Friday or Saturday, they shall be presumed to have been received on the Monday next following'. In a case where a licensing board had been asked to give reasons for its decision, the amendment would allow a period of 14 days within which an appeal could be made to the sheriff, to run from the date of receipt of the reasons instead of from the date of the board's decision. It is an improvement which allows rather more time for the appeal.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor
I accept that the amendment is an improvement. Instead of allowing simply 14 days, it allows 14 days from the alleged receipt of the reasons. Cannot the Secretary of State guarantee that 14 days will be allowed from the actual receipt of the reasons? The reasons could get lost in the post and there would be unreasonable delay. With registered post and recorded delivery it would be possible to establish when the reasons were delivered. To assume that letters are delivered the next day after posting could lead to injustice. Sometimes they do not arrive the next day. Is it fair or wise to write in an assumption which may not be a fact?
I am concerned also that there is no reference to the time of posting. The amendment simply says on the day after the date on which they were posted". 514 If letters are posted very late at night, it is extremely unlikely that they will be delivered next morning. Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to look at these matters between now and when the Bill goes to the Lords, with a view to producing more realistic provisions?

§ Mr. Gordon Wilson
If I read the clause correctly, unless an appeal is notified within the time limits given it will be time-barred. In the case of valuation appeals, if the time limits are not met the valuation appeal committee, in deciding to give a statement of reasons or to go ahead with an appeal to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court, has discretion to proceed even though the strict letter of the law has not been obeyed. There is case law to that effect. We have flexibility in the valuation system for appeals of a serious nature, but in the Bill a rigid time limit is set. Has the Minister considered the possibility of giving some form of discretion in relation to such appeals?

§ Mr. Millan
I think that the wording about posting is common form, but I am willing to consider it to ascertain whether it is right. I am willing to consider whether the second point is covered by implication or by convention, or whether we should consider writing something into the Bill.

§ Mr. Harry Ewing
I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 27, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert—

'(a) erred in law;

(b) based its decision on any incorrect material fact;

(c) acted contrary to natural justice; or

(d) exercised its discretion in an unreasonable manner.
( ) In considering an appeal grounded on paragraph (b) of subsection (3) above, the sheriff may hear evidence by or on behalf of any party to the appeal.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may take Amendment No. 117, in page 27, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert—

'(a) erred in law;

(b) based its decision on any incorrect material fact;

(c) acted contrary to natural justice; or

(d) exercised its discretion in an unreasonable manner.
(3A) The Sheriff may in considering an appeal under subsection (3)(b) above hear evidence by or on behalf of any party to the appeal'.

§ Mr. Ewing
Amendment No. 41 would provide an additional ground on which a sheriff might uphold an appeal against a licensing board's decision. It would enable the sheriff to hear evidence for or on behalf of any party on appeal on the ground that the board had based its decision on an incorrect material fact. The Law Society of Scotland made representations to us, and the amendment is designed to meet them.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 28, line 3, leave out Part III.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may take Amendment No. 93, in page 88, line 10, leave out Schedule 2.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
The amendment is of a fundamenal nature and I do not necessarily expect the House to come to a complete conclusion on the matter at this stage. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to deal with the matter in Committee, but it did not come to to my attention until later. I ask for no more than the Government to give this matter consideration between now and the Bill going to another place.
In Part III and in Schedule 2 we are legislating for seamen's canteens. I imagined that it must be a matter of some importance, and further research revealed that in Scotland there are only two seamen's canteens, both of which are in Glasgow. Precedent for dealing with them separately in licensing law goes right back to the 1939 Defence Regulations.
We are devoting seven clauses and one schedule to the two canteens in Glasgow. They may or may not need special treatment, but when dealing with licensing legislation the objective should be not merely to clarify but to try to ensure that we remove from old legislation such provisions as are not completely necessary.
I move the amendment in order to ask whether we can remove an anachronism and whether we cannot tidy up the Bill slightly and shorten things. Is it relevant in 1976 to have the seven clauses and the schedule merely for the purpose of covering two canteens in the whole of Scotland? I do not feel strongly about this 516 issue in any sense, but as much other tidying has been done I merely ask why this possible piece of tidying was not carried out.

§ Mr. Harry Ewing
It is very tempting to lighten the statute book by removing seven clauses and one schedule from any Bill. The difficulty is that these seamen's canteens—there are only two of them, as the hon. Gentleman said, and they are both in Glasgow—present some difficulties in definition. They cannot be defined as clubs because they are open to all seamen. They cannot be described as pubs because they are not open to the public. Off-sales from these places are not allowed either. They cannot be described as Service men's clubs because they are not under the control of the Government. The great difficulty was in finding a precise part of the licensing legislation where they would fit in.
We shall have another look at it. If we can find a way to lighten the legislation we shall do so, but I say that with tongue in cheek in view of the difficulties involved.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
The Government might look at whether these seamen's canteens could be covered from the club angle in some way or other. That might be a sensible way in which to approach the problem. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.