ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS OF LICENSING BOARDS (Hansard, 27 July 1976)

§ Mr. Rifkind
I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 37, after '(3)', insert— 'A licensing board may fix its own quorum which shall not be less than'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we shall take Government Amendment No. 8, and Amendment No. 9, in page 4, line 38, leave out shall be a quorum'.

§ Mr. Rifkind
I do not wish to speak at length on Amendment No. 7 because it is a minor drafting improvement to the clause. Government Amendment No. 8, however, reverses a decision taken by the Committee that a quorum for a meeting of a board should be a minimum of five rather than three. I think it is unfortunate that the Government have not accepted the Committee's decision because it provided an important safeguard in many areas of Scotland where the size of a licensing board is likely to be rather small. Important decisions may be taken by only three people attending the meeting.
496 If the Government amendment is accepted, a decision can be carried out by two votes to one removing a person's livelihood or approving a highly controversial licence. Clearly this is sometimes necessary with a very narrow majority, but it is at least acceptable where considerable numbers of members make the decision. Where only three persons might be present, with two in favour of a particular proposition which might have serious consequences and one against, the applicant or objector would have good grounds for feeling genuinely aggrieved, and this would be of great importance. It would be particularly significant in rural areas, which will have smaller licensing boards.

§ Mr. Harry Ewing
I ask the Opposition to withdraw their Amendment No. 7 and not to press Amendment No. 9; otherwise I must ask the House to reject them. I ask the House to agree to Government Amendment No. 8.
As I explained in Committee, licensing courts have been taking decisions in Scotland for many years on a quorum of two, and the Bill provided, before the amendment was made in Committee, that there should be a quorum of three in the new licensing boards. Since the decision of the Committee to raise the figure from three to five, we have con-suited the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the implications for local authorities of the increase, which puts the minimum quorum at the same level as the minimum number of members of a licensing board in terms of Clause 1(4). Of 14 chief executives of smaller authorities invited to comment by the convention, 11 would prefer to have a minimum quorum of three and a minimum membership of seven.
The convention made the point that an increase to seven in the membership of a licensing board could adversely affect the ability of councils with a small membership to constitute licensing boards, For example, Skye and Lochalsh District Council has a membership of 10, of whom two are disqualified from membership of licensing boards by virtue of being licence-holders. This district council would have difficulties in providing a minimum membership of seven.
The convention also consulted the chief executives of three district councils the 497 memberships of which range from 20 to 29 and which operate licensing divisions. Their view is that, if larger minimum numbers are approved for board membership and the quorum, this could lead to centralisation of licensing functions in their districts and abolition of the licensing divisions. This would deprive these authorities of the option to create divisions.
The overall view of the convention is, on balance, to favour a minimum quorum of three and a minimum membership of five. In the light of this view my amendment would restore the minimum quorum to three, leaving the minimum membership at five as in Clause 1(4). In commending this amendment to the House, I am conscious that it may disappoint the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) who, in moving his successful amendment in Committee expressed his concern that a quorum of three was too small for a licensing board in a rural area. I remind him that three is an increase of 50 per cent. over the present minimum of two.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor
I am disappointed that in this as in other cases the Government have changed their minds on certain amendments since the Committee stage. It was a happy and harmonious Committee with no accusations of bad faith. It is unfortunate that at this late stage, in the case of this amendment and a later one, the situation would appear to have arisen that there is bad faith by the Government.
I wish to ask one or two brief questions that arise from Government Amendment No. 8. If the quorum is to be three instead of five, does that figure apply to all the deliberations of the licensing board, only to the beginning of its meeting or to times when decisions are made? If the meeting of a board lasted for 45 minutes or two hours, would it be adequate to have a quorum of three at the beginning and a quorum of three when votes took place, or would it be necessary to have a quorum of three all the time?
4.30 a.m.
As it is an important change of principle to reduce the quorum from five to three, whose obligation is it to declare whether a quorum is present? If the number is to be reduced from five to 498 three, is it the duty of the clerk to the board to draw the attention of members present to the fact that a quorum is not present, or is it his duty to do so only if one of those appearing before the board brings it to his attention?
If we accept the amendment and reduce the quorum to three, will that mean that a licensing board's proceedings cannot continue unless there are three members of the board present at all times between decisions, while decisions are being considered and after they have been taken? It is important that we should have an assurance that three members will be present at all times when matters are being considered and decisions taken by the licensing board if we are to take this major step.
If there are to be three members present all the time, whose duty will it be to draw the clerk's attention to this provision? Did the Minister decide to introduce the amendment primarily because he believed that there would be a problem in providing five members because of the special and onerous duties of councillors and the decision to remove justices of the peace from membership of the boards? Bearing in mind the excellent arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) in Committee, is it the Minister's argument that three should be accepted instead of five because it is more efficient or more practical?
Did the Minister table the amendment because it was also his intention to introduce Amendment No. 87 and because he appreciated that there would be a problem of having regular meetings for some licensing boards in certain areas in three years' time? I think it would help the House to consider whether this is a good or bad amendment if we knew the reason for the Minister having tabled it. I listened to his arguments carefully and I was not entirely convinced by them. It seems that there must have been a special reason for the Government to have tabled the amendment, and I should like to know whether it was that they decided out of the blue to table a later amendment, which happens to be No. 87.

§ Mr. Harry Ewing
A quorum is a quorum. If the quorum is lost, the meeting is lost. I tabled the amendment because of the great difficulties involved 499 for the small local authorities. We shall discuss Amendment No. 87 when we come to it.

§ Mr. Millan
I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 4, leave out "(g)" and insert "(gii)".

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor
This amendment falls within the second group, which was debated with New Clause 1. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, explain whether acceptance of the amendment will preclude a debate on Amendment No. 49, which is basically the referendum amendment in the third grouping? I believe that it should be possible to vote on but not to debate Amendment No. 49 even if we accept Amendment No. 10. This affects the position of anyone who wants to vote on Amendment No. 10. I was advised by the Clerks that it would be possible to vote on Amendment No. 49 but not on Amendment No. 46.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
As I see it, Amendment No. 49 fell with Amendment No. 6.