RESTRICTION ORDERS (Hansard, 27 July 1976)

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor
I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 47, line 31, after 'safety', insert 'or that the licensed premises do not conform to a standard regarded as acceptable by the members of the board'. This is an important amendment which tests the sincerity of the Government and a large number of hon. Members who voted for Sunday opening and for the Bill.
Throughout our discussions, the Minister expressed the hope that an improvement in the standard of licensed premises would result from the Bill. But there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that that improvement will occur. The Bill contains provisions which the Minister hopes will ensure an improvement, but there is nothing to ensure that Sunday opening and an extension of hours will improve the standard.
The amendment is an attempt to secure a modest upgrading of the standard of licensed premises. Under Clause 65, the new hours of selling drink, up to 11 p.m. plus a quarter of an hour, can be reduced by a restriction order if the licensing board is persuaded that the premises constitute an undue public nuisance or a threat to public order or safety. One might think that if a public house provided a threat to public order or safety it would be modest to say that instead of selling until 11 p.m. it could sell only until 10 p.m.
533 If there is a threat to public order or safety, the board can consider a restriction order or, in other words, a fine, by the loss of one hour of drink sales time. I suggest going a bit further and I have proposed that, if members of a board are of the opinion that licensed premises do not conform to the standard they regard as acceptable, they can impose a restriction order which would mean 10 o'clock closing. This is a kind of two-tier system which can be operated by the members of the board.
Hon. Members have disagreements about some matters, but we all want to see pub standards improved. This is a modest way in which it can be achieved. One may ask what difference an hour would make. I suggest that if people are faced with a choice of going to a pub which closes at 11 p.m. or to another which closes at 10 p.m. they will be likely to go to the one which closes at 11 o'clock. It is a form of discipline which should be applied by the boards to improve standards.
This is not a novel suggestion or new departure. The Government already say that they will apply discipline, but only in cases where the house constitutes a nuisance or provides a threat to public safety and order. I propose to extend the restriction orders to saying "This pub is not up to standard."
I see that there will be some arguments against this proposal. People will ask "Is it fair if the board in Ross and Cromarty applies different standards to those applied in Glasgow?" The boards are the democratic representatives of their areas and should impose their own standards. I am not laying down rigid criteria or saying how large should be the drinking space or that the pub should provide meals or seats or display a sign saying "No women admitted" but am leaving it entirely to the boards to say what they regard as an acceptable standard.
This will give considerable power to the boards, but that is there already because they can say what is a threat to public order. Something which constitutes a threat in Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles would be different from what constituted such a threat in Glasgow. It will be up to the boards to fix their 534 own standards of public nuisance or safety.
There is, therefore, no change in principle. We can give more scope within the principle. I am suggesting that we should extend it. The people of Scotland will be concerned that we are taking this step of licensing reform without a specific measure to improve public standards. This proposal would achieve that.
I hope that, having made a major reform in Scottish licensing, the House will accept this minor amendment to say that we shall apply this discipline. But what kind of discipline is it? Would it work? I believe that it would. If the board decides that a pub must close at 10 p.m., its income and reputation will be substantially affected. The pub will get a bad name.
7.15 a.m.
The Minister may say that the drafting of the amendment is not perfect, but he should not let that stop him from accepting the principle. The Government may also argue that they are trying to improve standards in the schedule which is to be considered later, but that provides that these disciplines shall be applied only if there is undue public nuisance or disturbance. That is not the same as improving standards. My amendment would be a useful step forward. I am not suggesting that pubs should be closed if they are not up to standard. If they improve, they should be allowed to return to 11 p.m. opening. This is within the spirit of the speeches of almost every hon. Member, whether for or against longer hours or Sunday opening. We all want to see standards improved.

§ Mr. Millan
Clause 65 is concerned only with restriction orders, and the restriction of opening hours is very much related to public nuisance and public disturbance. We want greater sanctions than a 10 p.m. closing time for premises that do not come up to standard and we have them in Clause 34, which provides the power to close premises which are not of an acceptable standard.
Far from not meeting the point of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), the Bill goes well beyond the sanction that he seeks. His amendment would weaken the powers of the Bill to deal with premises which are not of a suitable standard. We have much 535 stronger sanctions, and I hope that appropriate cases they will be used.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor
I cannot accept what the Secretary of State has said. If premises are to be closed because standards are not acceptable, should they not also be closed if there is undue public nuisance or disturbance?
Clause 34 says: Where a licensing board considers that licensed premises are no longer suitable or convenient for the sale of alcoholic liquor, having regard to their character and condition, and the nature and extent of the use of the premises, the board may decide to hold a hearing with a view to making a closure order under this section". The Minister will be aware that when the words "no longer" are used they must relate to a deterioration. There is certainly plenty of case law in this respect. If that is not the case, why are the words "no longer" contained in Clause 34? The Minister will be aware that this is a sanction which will be applied if there is a deterioration in the construction of the building or because of a change in circumstance. Clause 34 applies, like the rating laws, to a change in circumstance. If the amendment is accepted, it will not in any way affect Clause 34. It will not weaken Clause 34, but it would be an alternative sanction for different circumstances. If I am wrong, why are the words "no longer" included in Clause 34?
I want to give the licensing boards the power to improve the standard of pubs. Clause 34 is a violent section. I am not concerned with closing pubs down. I would suggest that most people, whether they live in Ross and Cromarty, Stornaway, Glasgow or anywhere else, would prefer a less rigid sanction than simply closing the pubs down.
For example, if a licensing board said that it was happy with eight pubs in its area but not the ninth, does the Minister say that we should close pub No. 9? That is not the answer. We should try to impose some form of discipline which will encourage pub No. 9 to improve its standards. The limited legal advice which I have received informs me that Clause 34 applies to pubs which have deteriorated or have changed circumstances. That is why the words "no longer" have been inserted. But if we want to make 536 provision for the improvement of standards in pubs, should we not have something along the lines suggested in the amendment?
I think that the Secretary of State is being a little unreasonable. He must accept that, even if we have the power that I am suggesting in Clause 65, the provisions contained in Clause 34 will remain undiluted. The amendment simply provides an additional power gradually to bring about an improvement in standards. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this point.
Whenever I have said anything, all I have got is a surly look from the Secretary of State. Although he and I may disagree about many things, I hope he can accept that one of the aims of the Bill is to improve public house standards. It would do no harm to accept the amendment, and it might do a lot of good. Irrespective of what the Secretary of State has said, I hope the House will accept that the amendment would be a useful one.

§ Mr. Millan
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has changed his mind. At the beginning he complained that the Bill contained no provision to deal with the standard of premises. I said that such a provision was contained in Clause 34, and that it was a much tougher sanction than the one he is proposing, unnecessarily I think, to write into Clause 65. The hon. Gentleman now says that he wants to write it into Clause 65 as an additional sanction as if he was aware of Clause 34 all the time, which obviously he was not.
I do not know why the hon. Gentleman cannot occasionally get up and say he is sorry and that he has overlooked Clause 34. He gets up and goes on at great length as if he had known about it all the time, and now he wants to do something which is entirely different from what he originally said. Closures on grounds of public safety are dealt with in Clause 33. There is, therefore, no gap in the Bill from that point of view.
There is no significance in the use of the phrase "no longer" except that a licence should not be given in the first place unless the premises are of a satisfactory standard. It follows logically that they cannot be closed unless they are no 537 longer of a satisfactory standard. There is no sinister significance in the phrase. The amendment would weaken the sanctions in the Bill, which the hon. Member originally said that he favoured.

§ Mr. William Ross
I can appreciate the extent of the concern of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), but I wonder whether he read Clause 65 before he tabled the amendment. This provision relates only to the sale or supply of alcoholic liquor in the evening, when there could be undue public nuisance which could constitute a threat to public order or safety. Now, however, the hon. Member seeks to shift the ground to licensed premises which do not conform to a standard acceptable to members of the board. That does not relate to the evening. That surely relates to the premises themselves, which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, are adequately covered in the previous clauses. I appreciate what the hon. Member is seeking to do, but the amendment would not be desirable, effective or practical.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor
I respect the views of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I am sorry that the House appears to have no sympathy with what I am trying to do. Not one voice other than my own has been raised in support of the amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman takes that view, that is good enough for me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.