LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS] (Hansard, 7 May 1976)

§ Mr. J. W. Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not intend to delay the House for long. However, it is worth while to have 1653 a short debate on Third Reading because the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords some months ago.
The one thing that has been important throughout is to reiterate what the Bill does not do as opposed to what it does. The Bill does not alter the permitted hours of drinking, or the lower age limit for drinking, or the space available for drinking in clubs, ballrooms, and so on, and it in no way allows undesirable elements to take any advantage of the licensing laws. It is simply a technical Bill, a tidying-up operation after the decision of the Law Lords in the case of Carter v. Bradbeer. It will simply restore the law to what everyone thought it was and as it was operating between 1964 and 1975.
In that respect we hope that there will be none of the loss of employment in the entertainment and licensed trade industry that would have come about, in a substantial way, were it not for the Bill. Many club owners and ballroom owners, be they the owners of working men's clubs or ordinary commercial premises, would have been forced to employ either waiters or waitresses at prohibitive rates of pay and for a very few hours in the day, and the consequent increase in the price of drinks would have had the effect of many of these places having to close down, throwing many thousands of people in the industry—literally tens of thousands—out of work.
The Bill is agreed by all sections of the industry, from the large-scale operators, such as Mecca, to working men's clubs, and particularly the trade unions. In this respect, the Musicians' Union felt aggrieved with the decision in the case of Carter v. Bradbeer. Until the tragic death a few weeks ago of Mr. Brian O'Malley, the late Member for Rotherham and Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, we had in the House a Member sponsored by the Musicians' Union. I believe he was the only member of the Government who had ever been a professional musician. He took a very close interest in this matter and discussed the consequences of the Bill not going through Parliament in relation to the employment prospects of those who earn their living by performing music.
1654 This is not a field in which many hon. Members would have a professional interest. However, a letter from the General Secretary of the Musicians' Union was sent to me some weeks ago. In the letter he made the point that in the last decade there had been a significant shift in musical employment away from the traditional places to the small cabaret clubs. This shift has been brought about by many factors, such as changes in the social climate, the influence of the media, and so on. He said, as experienced trade unionists, we are not easily impressed by claims of economic difficulties made by employers. Nevertheless. I have to tell you that after the most careful consideration of all the facts, we had arrived at the view that the Lords ruling—if left unchanged—would have had a disastrous effect on the employment prospects of our members in this area. There were literally thousands of jobs at stake. In the places that did not close, there would have been an astronomical increase in the price of drinks. It would have made no difference whether they were wines, spirits or soft drinks. To that extent it is important that the Bill has as speedy a passage as possible.
Due to a technical amendment in Committee, the Bill has to return to the House of Lords, from whence it came. However, certainly up to two or three weeks ago the police in many parts of the country were still raiding clubs on the basis of the Law Lords' ruling—as they are entitled to do, because that is the law of the land at present. People with a music and dancing licence and a special hours certificate found that if they were serving drinks not by the use of waiters and waitresses, and probably sometimes providing the means of having a substantial meal at an early hour of the morning, the police were entitled to raid the premises and to institute prosecutions. There was a prosecution in Birmingham a couple of weeks ago, and fines in excess of £600 were imposed, directly relating to the judgement in the Carter v. Bradbeer case.
To that extent, the trade and workers in the trade owe a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who introduced the Bill in the other place, and to those hon. Members, on both the Opposition and the Government sides of the House, who have supported the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. I 1655 hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage today and, therefore, will receive the Royal Assent very shortly.

§ Mr. Ian Percival (Southport)
I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) enabled the House to have a Third Reading debate on this Bill, albeit a short one, because it gives us the opportunity to echo the tributes that he has paid to those concerned.
This Bill will be useful to the proprietors of establishments in the catering, hotel and tourist industry generally. It will be useful to those who work in the industry, and it will be useful to the public, too. It is not all that often that one can say of any measure that goes through the House that it will be useful to all the interests that are concerned, but this one definitely will be.
The Bill falls within a small compass, but that is not to say that its usefulness is minimal. It has tackled a practical problem and solved it. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls who introduced the Bill in the other place, because it is interesting to note that were it not for that place this Bill would not be before the House today and Parliament as a whole would not have had this opportunity to right a wrong. I hope that those who criticise the other place on other occasions will remember this as one instance when it has proved extremely useful.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman also on the speed with which he picked up the Bill, which came before this House extremely rapidly. I had been in consultation with my noble Friend about it, but I had the good fortune to be appointed to the position from which I now speak and was here when the Bill came before this House. The speed with which the lion. Gentleman picked up the Bill has resulted in its reaching this stage so quickly and satisfactorily.
This short Third Reading debate enables me to do something else, and that is to pay tribute to the great service that is rendered by the hotel, catering and tourist industry generally, and I mean all parts of it—those who provide the proprietors, and those who work 1656 in it. It is not sufficiently frequently acknowledged what a tremendous part this industry plays in the life of the county in so many different ways, not least in providing entertainment and relaxation for all who live here. It provides a wide range of entertainment and relaxation at all sorts of prices to suit the needs of everyone.
It is not generally recognised, either, what an enormous earner this industry is of overseas currency. I do not have the figures to hand but I am sure the Minister can confirm that this industry makes a significant contribution to our earnings from abroad, and it does this without any great expense on imports.
The industry also provides employment for a large number of people, and that is a good thing. Further, it brings to this country people from abroad and enables them to come into contact with people here that much more often, and in that way the industry plays its part in fostering international understanding and better relations.
The industry does all those things, and very often it does so in the face of many difficulties, and I would not say that we are all that good at removing the difficulties that that industry has to face in doing things that give it a boost. It is particularly my pleasure today to be able, first, on behalf of the Opposition to pay a tribute to the industry and, secondly, as the Member representing one of the foremost resorts playing a part in that industry, to pay a tribute to what is done by those who provide all these facilities in my constituency.
I am also glad to be able to play a part in getting rid of one of the difficulties that were besetting the industry, and I want before resuming my seat to say something about how that difficulty arose. I think the House will recognise that the difficulty did not arise because of the law and lawyers doing something silly. It arose because this House did not give sufficient consideration to the provisions before passing them. I say that baldly as a fact, not necessarily as a criticism.
So much legislation goes through this House these days—the volume was less in 1964 but it was still rather heavy—that it is not possible for every provision to receive the detailed examination 1657 that it ought to be given. In fact, as the noble Lord who introduced the Bill in the other place said, the provisions which have led to this trouble and which we are about to repeal passed through Parliament without a word being said about them.
I do not think that we shall even reach the stage at which we are able to give to everything that comes before the House the full consideration that it merits, certainly not unless and until the Government of the day are willing to reduce the volume of legislation going through the House, and I hope that the House will bear in mind instances such as this when there develops a situation such as has frequently developed in the past.
The House is somewhat impatient of lawyer Members who tend on occasion to say to the House "Do just stop for a moment, and let us ask ourselves what such-and-such a provision means". I know that that is sometimes a bit of a nuisance because hon. Members are anxious to get on with passing their own provisions through the House, but I hope that this will be something of a reminder—I do not put it any higher than that—of the sort of thing that is likely to happen if we do not give the closest possible examination to all the provisions that come before us. The provision that we are repealing is a good example of what I mean, because although it does not affect a very wide field, it has created real difficulties, albeit for a short time, for a considerable number of people.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Perry Barr took this opportunity to reassure people who might have thought otherwise that this has none of the usual implications or raises none of the usual concerns associated with a Bill relating to licensing. The noble Lord said in the other place: The scope of the Bill is truly minimal. None of the known susceptibilities normally related to licensing matters is involved in the repeal of this subsection."—[Official Report, Haile of Lords, 15th December 1975 Vol. 366, c. 1259.] think we all agree with that.
I am glad that the noble Lord stressed that effect of the Bill. It is important that it should be stressed because, whether or not one agrees with the sort of susceptibilities there being referred to, we know 1658 how strongly people hold the different points of view that are held on this matter. It is, therefore, right that they should know that what we are doing now does not bear upon any of those considerations.
Both on behalf of the Conservative Opposition and personally I welcome the Bill and congratulate all those who have had a part in it.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill)
The purpose of the Bill, as has been said, is to reverse the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Bradbeer v. Carter. That decision has created widespread problems for the entertainment and licensing trade, because it appears to have been a common practice for bars to be used for the serving of drinks in places primarily licensed for music and dancing and subject to a special hours certificate from the licensing justices.
It has been represented by the interests involved that between 100,000 and 250,000 people could be made redundant by the application of the Law Lords' judgment to all the premises involved, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker) rightly emphasised the importance of this industry in providing employment.
The Home Office has received deputations in favour of this legislation from hon. Members including, as my hon. Friend said, a representation from the late Brian O'Malley. We have received representations from club owners themselves and from the Musicians' Union. There were also a significant number of written representations. All claim that the enforcement of the law, as clarified, would mean the widespread closure of premises unable to bear the extra cost of waitress service.
Whatever is the exact number of people involved—and estimates vary—it clearly has had considerable employment implications. The Government therefore thought that it was right to allow this Private Member's Bill to be considered by Parliament and we have not sought to oppose it. The Bill merely seeks to revert to the status quo. It should not, therefore, in practice—and I am glad the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) emphasised this point—increase opportunities for 1659 drinking. There is no question of preempting decisions of the Erroll Report. It is still under consideration by the Government and is the subject of great public discussion.
The Bill, in fact, will do two things. It will permit special hours certificates to be granted in respect of bars, as well as other parts of licensed premises, and, secondly, it will extend retrospectively the scope of existing special hours cerificates so that bars in the premises, or parts of premises, to which they apply are no longer excluded from their scope. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr on successfully piloting this Bill through the House.