HC Deb 27 July 1976 vol 916 cc566-76
Mr. Millan

I beg to move Amendment No. 87, in page 78, line 40, leave out 'five' and insert 'three'.

The effect of the amendment would be to reduce from five to three years the period after which the local authority could resolve that a limiting or no-licence resolution had effect. We have decided to abandon the present legislation in respect of local polls for either limiting or no-licence resolutions, and the Bill provides that there should be transitional provisions. The transitional provisions in the clause freeze the situation for five years, but, following that, nothing happens until the local authority passes a resolution.

We have considered the matter again since Committee stage and I now believe that, given other safeguards in the clause, a freeze period of three years is adequate to allow for preparation for adjustment to a new situation. Even after the three years there is no automatic movement. A resolution by the local authority concerned is needed.

I have some of these resolutions in force in my constituency and I therefore know something of the feeling on these matters in the past. We are abandoning that system, however, and the point of principle has been conceded. Therefore, the three-year freeze period would be adequate, and I hope that it is acceptable to the House.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

In his brief explanation of the amendment the Secretary of State gave no reason for the change embodied in the amendment. Has he had representations on the matter? Has he received letters? Has there been great protest in his constituency? Are the people pressing to get rid of their "dry" and limitation areas as quickly as possible? Let me suggest that there has been no such pressure.

There are a small number of areas in Scotland where restrictions are imposed because of veto polls. They are listed at the end of the Clayson Report. Some of these are "dry" areas. Half of my constituency is "dry". That does not mean that there is no drinking, only that there are no licensed premises apart from clubs or a licensed restaurant if the need for it is proven.

There have been arguments against veto polls for many years, and there has grown up a remarkable organisation called the Licensed Trade Veto Poll Defence Fund which was set up to defend publicans against veto polls. Under Scottish law the people in any area can get together and vote "dry" or limitation. To secure that there must be at least a 35 per cent. poll and a majority of those voting in favour. There have been few veto polls of late.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that in this small number of areas it is looked upon as a valuable safeguard for the community. We have heard a great deal from the Government about wanting to extend democracy. We do not hear so much about that from moderate Labour Members, such as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), but some of the wilder Left-wingers have talked about the need to extend democracy. They want to bring back democracy to the people and let them play a greater part in their own destiny. That is what the veto poll was all about. It gave people the right to decide whether they want to have no pubs, a few pubs, a limitation arrangement or a straight "wet" condition in their area.

I appreciate that there was unfairness and injustice. For example, a pub- lican might have said that he wanted to spend £100,000 on building a new public house in the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian. That would have been a substantial investment. The money might have been secured, only to find that there was a veto poll and that the public house had to be closed. That meant that the investment was lost. There is no doubt that that was of real concern to those who wanted to make investments by building public houses and licensed pre-mires. That is why a splinter organisation set up a veto poll defence fund. The fund was established so that if there were a veto poll in any area an organised campaign could be mounted and some compensation paid to those who might be affected. That was a form of insurance organised by a reputable organisation.

Substantial sums have been put into the fund. What will happen now that the fund is to be abolished? No doubt the money will have to go somewhere. I hope that it will be used for the benefit of the people of Scotland. I hope that it will be directed to the maintenance of their health and welfare. The Secretary of State may know something about the fund. It would be good to know where the money is going. I know that I have no right to ask about that as it is not my money or money that should belong to the people of Cathcart.

Under the Bill the Government are abolishing veto polls as from the enactment of the Bill. That means that the threat will be removed. No longer will a publican think of building a giant pub somewhere in Scotland only to be faced with the threat of a veto poll. As from the enactment of the Bill the fund will be closed down.

In the ward of Graigton there were changes from "dry" to limitation to "wet". That was a classic area about which people talked about. They said that it was ridiculous to change in that way. It was said that the publicans did not know where they welt or how they stood.

That threat has been removed because there will be no more veto polls as from the enactment of the Bill. All that remains to be resolved is what happens to the areas that are now "dry" or limitation. The Government proposals envisage that on a certain date we shall open the "dry" areas and the limitation areas to the great gold rush of publicans. They will rush into the "dry" areas to have a profitable and, no doubt a happy time. That will happen. The only question is when it will take place.

I have an interest as half of my constituency is "dry" and the other half is limitation. The old Cathcart Ward is a "dry" area. That means that unless one is a member of the Labour Party, an ex-Service man who can apply for membership of the British Legion or a bowls player it is difficult to get a drink in the ward.

There is limitation in the Langside Ward. There is one real hotel, not one of the funny hotels that have been mentioned. There are also some licensed grocers and one pleasant eating house that has a bar of a sort.

Those two parts of my constituency will be opened up by the Bill. Obviously I am concerned. The previous Secretary of State for Scotland—I had a high regard for him and I told him so publicly and privately—accepted that we had a problem in such areas and he wanted to do something about it. I understand that it was largely because of his good nature and his interest in places and people that he introduced a five-year clause whereby people in these areas would have their position protected for at least five years, and thereafter it was up to the local council or licensing board to decide what happened.

9.15 a.m.

I was not happy with that because I wanted to keep the veto polls, and when we discussed it in Committee I moved a splendid amendment, saying that we should have a temperance poll in various areas and basically continue the provision of the temperance poll. Unfortunately, the majority of the Committee did not vote for my amendment. I had the support of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) but there were not many other Members who supported me.

This was a valuable debate, because the Under-Secretary of State gave me some assurances which not only pleased me but helped me, as I think he would agree, to become a lot more co-operative—even more than I had been—in regard to the passing of the Bill. The Minister was certainly very kind. He said: As a result of our consideration of this very difficult problem—because it affects people—we decided that we would introduce certain safeguards. The first of these safeguards was that there would be a five-year period. There would be no veto polls for that five-year period but, equally, in that period there would be no possibility of a dry area becoming wet. My constituents were very pleased to note this, and I took it as a gesture of good will on the Minister's part. I think he will agree that I became even more co-operative in the Committee. The Minister added, later in his speech: To summarise, we have built in safeguards which we consider adequate to meet the changing circumstances. When he was asked about it, the Minister said: I strongly suspect that the Committee is of the mind that we have got this matter right.… I believe that it would be in the best interest of future licensing legislation if we were to adopt the course defined in the Bill."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 1st July 1976; c. 798–800.] My constituents were very happy, and because of that I entered the next sitting of the Committee in a frame of mind which I think the Government will accept was far more conducive to co-operation than previously. Not only had I to convince the Government but also my hon. Friends, who were extremely kind to me, because they had received representations from the licensed trade and the brewers.

My hon. Friends considered each representation on its merits. There was no question of Tories acting as rubber stamps for the brewers. Such arguments are quite untrue and unfounded. We did not act as rubber stamps for the licensed trade, which was asking for a reduction from five years to three. An amendment was therefore tabled, more as a probe than anything else, but when I discussed it privately with my hon. Friends they were very kind and understanding and agreed to withdraw it. We then discussed my amendment instead, and the Minister made a splendid speech.

Now we have a situation in which my constituents will be very unhappy indeed, because, having—

Mr. McCartney

We have already had the referendum.

Mr. Taylor

The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that we had a veto poll in Cathcart, when there was a council there, and in that poll 12,000 people voted. The licensed trade was strongly urging them to vote "wet". As far as I recall, 10,000 voted "dry" and 2,000 "wet". That was a clear expression of the people of Cathcart, which includes the largest housing estate in Europe. The majority of the people in the housing estate were in favour of keeping the area "dry". The views of the people were quite clear, and they were very happy indeed with the result. They were also very happy at the Minister's speech.

But the Minister has not been very helpful, co-operative or friendly towards me today. He has stated that the Government, having reconsidered the question, have changed their mind. It is something which affects only a very small number of areas in Scotland and they are all clearly defined. The Minister now says that three years are enough, rather than five.

Representations were made by the licensed trade saying that it wanted the period reduced from five to three years. We received no reasons from the Minister why this period was thought to be enough, nor were there explanations why five years was thought to be the right period. However, the Secretary of State said that he had reconsidered the matter and proposed a period of three years. What is the appropriate period?

If we change a "dry" area to a "wet" area, as the Government propose, a major upheaval is involved. Five years is the minimum period in which we may plan for such a change. It will be a major change. We shall not like it. The Minister may say that the local council will protect the local people. However, the people in Cathcart do not always think that the local council necessarily protects them to the fullest degree. The Glasgow District Council does not have a unique record among Scottish local authorities of paying regard to the interests of areas on the periphery of the city. Sometimes my constituents have been unhappy about its decisions. They have the impression that it does not look upon Cathcart with the same concern and regard as it looks upon other areas of the city. We do not look upon that as any protection.

It would be sensible to leave the period of five years in the Bill. I shall be much happier if the temperance areas remain as they are for all time, unless the people vote for a change. We may do away with temperance polls if they are considered a threat. But are they a threat? How many temperance polls have there been recently? How many publicans have been affected? How many pubs have been closed? Until now this process had developed well and logically in Scotland. Matters had settled down nicely.

This proposal will mean a change in my constituency. One of the other areas affected will be Craigton, which the Secretary of State represents. I do not know Craigton. Although I do not wish to go into details, one of my friends was a councillor in that area. I gained the impression from him that the local people valued their position as inhabitants of a limitation area. It is now proposed that the period should be three years. Has the Secretary of State any evidence from the people in the area affected that they regard three years as adequate and that they are opposed to five years? As he proposes a major change, there should be some evidence. It is all very well to say that the brewers, the licensed trade and county council associations think that three years are enough, but what about the people? The Under-Secretary said that we had to be careful as the proposal would affect the people. What evidence is there from the people? Has there been any indication from the people who live in these limitation or "dry" areas that they feel that three years are preferable to five? I suggest that there is not a shred of evidence that that is so.

The amendment will mean a fundamental change in my constituency. Mine is the only constituency which is totally covered by limitation or "dry" areas. Neither my constituents nor I are looking forward to the implementation of this proposal. We felt that the five-year period, which the Secretary of State first offered, was the minimum that was reasonable in all the circumstances. I hope that the Minister will now reconsider his position. I hope he will say that the Government will not at this stage of the Bill cause unnecessary conflict.

We accept what the Under-Secretary said in Committee. He said that he had given careful consideration to this difficult problem and had arrived at the decision that five years was the right period.

I hope that the Minister will answer my specific questions and say whether those who live in these areas have expressed any view whether three years—not five years—is the right period.

Mr. Millan

We are dealing with a simple matter on which I gather the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcant (Mr. Taylor) disagrees with me. I can put up with that. In my area I dare say that those of my constituents who voted originally for the limitation resolution would like it to continue for as long as possible and those who voted against it would like it removed as soon as possible.

We have to make a judgment. Three years is a reasonable transitional arrangement, particularly as at the end of that period nothing happens automatically. There is a requirement for a resolution of the district council.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. JAMES HAMILTON and Mr. IAN CAMPBELL were appointed Tellers for the Ayes but, no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 78, line 44, leave out 'consult with' and insert'obtain the agreement of'. This amendment is crucially linked with Amendment No. 87. It introduces the safeguarding provisions which the Government said that they were introducing. I am bitterly disappointed that I could not get support for my previous amendment. That is because only a few areas are affected. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetlands (Mr. Grimond) is not here. Two small islands in his constituency are similarly affected and if he had been able to be here he would have supported me.

Clause 131(3) reads as follows: Before making any resolution as mentioned in subsection (2) above,"— which would effectively do away with the "dry" status or the limited status— the district or islands council shall consult with the community council or councils for the area concerned. I propose that it should obtain the agreement of the community councils for the area.

Community councils have virtually no executive power. They do not have rights. They have only power to look at matters and to be consulted. It might be argued that community councils are not representative of all the people in the area but they are about the closest we can get to a representative body.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pro-van (Mr. Brown) might suggest the tenants' association, but in my experience a tenants' association would not necessarily be representative of the people in the area. Residents' associations do not necessarily represent anyone. They consist of a few activists. In Parliament we are activists, so we know what that means—five or six people meeting in a room and saying that they speak on behalf of 20,000 people. That is not necessarily—

9.30 a.m.

Mr. David Steel

The hon. Member always claims that—

Mr. Taylor

I think the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) is not showing the objective approach one should expect of the Leader of a party. In a rather jaundiced way he is giving the impression that all he wants is to get to his bed as quickly as he can. The leader of a party has the obligation of having to wait up late at night and to consider important matters. If the hon. Member is one day the Prime Minister he will undoubtedly have—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Back to "obtain the agreement of".

Mr. Taylor

We have these community councils. They were set up under Scottish local government reform. That was one of the many reforms introduced by the Heath Administration. They introduced a large number of reforms. Some of my colleagues believe that there were too many. One was local government reform, and in that we set up districts and regions which were larger than under previous local government arrangements. It was thought that there should be local bodies to represent local opinion at local level, and so we set up community councils. This Government, in this clause, have shown their resolution to make an area "wet" or "dry" unless it consults the community councils.

If we are to encourage a democratic interest in their own affairs, it is essential that the agreement of the community councils should be obtained before a resolution is made, otherwise people in another locality will make a decision for that locality. I hope that the Government will enable my amendment to be made. They have already done a great deal of damage to my constituency. It would be wrong and shameful if this arrangement to ensure that a decision is made in agreement with the community councils were not included in the Bill.

The number of times we write into legislation a duty to consult causes me great concern. We do this in many Bills at present. I can remember the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) speaking a great deal about the Central Development Agency and its duty to consult everybody. Many people are getting a little muddled about consultation and what it means. It is in no way a guarantee of justice, and I should like to think that in this Bill we shall try to have some justice.

What is wrong with the community council, representative of the people in the area, having the right to say "Yes" or "No" to a major proposal which affects the people and the way of life of the community in that area?

The Minister, who has done me badly and my constituency ill, should make a small concession at this late stage. Frankly I feel that on the Committee I was misled, probably largely through my own fault. I am basically a trusting person and I thought that something would emerge for my constituency from the Bill. I am not accusing the Secretary of State of treachery but because I am a trusting person I took his words as a firm declaration. I ask him to make amends by a small and reasonable amendment which will affect only a tiny number of areas in Scotland but which will undo some of the damage done by the Government's proposals.

Mr. Millan

The clause provides for consultation with community councils, which is the right relationship in a matter of this sort. The amendment would take the decision on this subject out of the hands of the district council and give it to the community council. It would mean that the community council had a veto over the local authority.

I do not want to go into the history of community councils—they are only now being set up—but that was not the relationship intended in the 1973 Act and the amendment would be incompatible with the relationship that was intended. I hope that full account will be taken of the community council's views, but the decision must be for the district council.

Amendment negatived.

Forward to