LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL (Hansard, 3 November 1976)

HC Deb 03 November 1976 vol 918 cc1536-49 1536

§ Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. William Ross
One of the other amendments made in the House of Lords was to change the Sunday opening hours by extending them to 11 a.m. until 2.30 p.m. and 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. This is something else that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian accepted. He must have been asleep for most of that day.

§ Mr. Mackintosh
I was not only not asleep but I heard my right hon. Friend saying that he did not want fall-back positions because they would not work.

§ Mr. Ross
The one thing that will work will be the power given to the licensing court. That is what we have not got at present. The person who wants to open on Sunday has to make virtually a new application, and then 1537 it is looked at by the licensing court in the light of the safeguards. What my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McMillan) wants to do in supporting the Lords is to give the right not to the licensing court—to which objection could be made by those affected—but to the pub owner. That is quite wrong in view of what we are doing elsewhere. We have gone a long way in this and it is necessary, in order to—

§ Mr. Tom McMillan
The publican has to re-apply to the board occasionally for his licence.

§ Mr. Ross
Occasionally, yes, for the renewal of licence. The rights in relation to individuals objecting to renewal are different from those where a new licence is involved, as my hon. Friend well knows.
It is right to focus on this. The pattern is changing on Sunday. It is being changed by everything we do. No Sunday trading Acts are applicable in Scotland. It was never thought to be necessary in a Presbyterian Scotland to have Acts of Parliament to allow shops to open and football and cricket matches to take place on a Sunday. There is more restriction in England than in Scotland simply because of that. Celtic are to play Ipswich on a Sunday. If we hurry up and get the Bill through, we can have the pubs open as well. Does my hon. Friend relish that idea?
If some people get their way, step by step, with competitive football matches on Sundays and the pubs open, we shall also have community hymn-singing, led by the hon. Member for—

§ Mr. David Lambie (Central Ayrshire)rose—

§ Mr. Ross
We shall have community hymn-singing—

§ Mr. Lambierose—

§ Mr. Speaker
It looks as though the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

§ Mr. Ross
I think that we were right in the first place when we put in these safeguards, and we are right to follow the Secretary of State's advice and put them back.

§ Mr. George Thompson (Galloway)
I am one of the few Members to speak tonight on this matter who did not make 1538 a speech on Report. In the middle of the night in question I decided to exercise—

§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)
The hon. Member fell asleep.

§ Mr. Thompson
No, something much more virtuous. I decided to exercise a self-denying ordinance. For the convenience of the House I decided that I would not make a speech. But when we arrived at 10 minutes to 10 the following morning, I wondered whether I had expedited the business of the House at all by my self-denial.
There has been mention of the old fashioned bona fide traveller. I was a mature student in Edinburgh University in the early 1960s. The bona fide traveller conditions in those days meant that I and many of my friends took long walks over the Pentlands on Sundays because it was possible to take a bus out to Balerno for a grand, healthy walk across the hills, arrive at a hotel somewhere on the other side and get a pint and some sandwiches. The only thing that we were not allowed to do was sing or play the piano.
Then I went to France for a year as a teacher. When I came back, the law had been changed. I am sorry to say that I was one of the few of the old band which had walked across the Pentlands on Sunday afternoons who continued to carry on this good custom, despite the fact that, when I had crossed the hills, there was no hotel open waiting to receive me and, as I did not like standing round in the dark waiting for a couple of hours, I took the next bus back to Edinburgh.
It has been said that there are different drinking habits as between Scotland and England and, indeed, as between Scotland and many other countries. I notice in my own area in the summer that, if I go into a bar and ask for "a half", the barman is likely as not to try to hand me a half-pint of beer, whereas in the winter he would not dream of doing so and would know that I was asking for whisky. The tourist from England and other places comes into the area in the summer and deranges the habits of the well-trained barman in my constituency.
I have to confess that my opinion on this matter has changed in the course of our consideration of this Bill. Before it 1539 started, I was convinced that we needed universal Sunday opening—"The Jolly Beggers" approach. We in St. John's town of Dalry had both bars open on Sundays because they were both in hotels so that all the outlets for drink in bars on Sundays were open as they would be on week days. So I asked myself whether we could turn to other places and say to them "We are all right but, of course, you are different. Your cannot get a drink near your own homes on a Sunday." I wondered whether this was not another example of some of us in Scotland behaving as the unco guid and the rigidly righteous—a sort of alcoholic elitism.
That was my opinion when I first considered the Bill. But I listened carefully to nearly all of the many speeches on Report, and I read carefully letters sent to me by constituents and others. I paid attention to what was said to me by city Members on one side and on the other side of the great divide. I remembered, too, pubs that I had seen when travelling from my own home to such notable places as Bannockburn and Stirling and, quite frankly, I changed my mind.
I do not want us to continue a system where people in certain of our towns and cities have to travel miles and miles on a Sunday to get a drink. I think that it leads to the sort of scenes and the sort of drinking habits that we want to avoid. I believe that the Bill with the safeguards restored will make the proprietors of undesirable premises alter their premises to bring them up to the standard where they will be able to open on Sundays because they will have satisfied the licensing boards that their premises are now suitable.
I had one difficulty because of the speed with which the Bill with the Lords amendments came back to us. It was that I had no chance to go back to those of my constituents who had written to me and to whom I had written after the Bill passed through this House on Third Reading and to consult them further on the matter. I find myself tonight disagreeing with the Lords, and agreeing with the Secretary of State in his desire to maintain these safeguards, and I hope my support will not do him any damage.

§ Mr. William Small (Glasgow, Garscadden)
I am puzzled about the matter 1540 we are discussing. It is the kind of transcendental thought process which exists between this House and another place.
Some of my colleagues are pretty learned people, but I have an idea that they may have got it wrong. The Bill can be corrected only in this place. We here are the guardians of the rights of men and women alike. Men and women have the same rights, and I speak purely in platonic terms. Those equal rights were given force by the Sex Discrimination Act which was passed so recently.
We are seeing here the wisdom, thought and revelation of the other place, and that can command my support. I support also my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. When the Bill went to the other place, it contained no reflection of pagan hopes. To interfere with the Bill in the way that the other place did was an analogy of the situation in which the Christians would never kiss the lepers.

§ Mr. Tom McMillan
I believe that the House of Lords has shown the courage that we lack. It has faced up to the licensing situation in Scotland much better than we have. If the Opposition look at their amendments and speeches, they will see that they have settled for half a loaf. They wanted to maintain a principle as much as I did.
The House of Lords has given us the chance to make good the loss. If we follow through the fall-back position of my right hon. Friend, when an applicant applies for a seven-day licence and he gets turned down, he applies to the sheriff. The sheriff is asked to make double standards and he will not do that. What sheriff, having granted a six-day licence, will then tell a licensee that he cannot open on the seventh day? If we make bad laws, it is bad for this House, and this is a bad law.
Hon. Members have mentioned noise. In Scottish cities noise has changed very little, but pubs have changed a great deal. One of my constituents lives next door to Tennant's Brewery and the noise abatement officer visited him because it was thought that the noise from the brewery was depriving him of sleep. Noise from pubs is measured in the same way, and there is the same surveillance as of factories and vehicles.
1541 The Lords have looked at this matter and have come up with the right answer. I think we should consider very carefully how this procedure will work. In the Bill there is a provision dealing with canvassing. If in one area there are five pubs and one is granted a seven-day licence while the other four are not, the pub with the seven-day licence will attract customers of the other pubs not only on Sunday but on the weekdays. This is offensive and unjust, and if we come to the fall-back position of my right hon. Friend, this will be the situation.
The Lords have got it right, and we should have the courage to support them.

§ Mr. Buchan
I said on Report stage that I found myself in the unique position in a sea of certainty of being the one hon. Member who did not know. The only reason I abstained was that the safeguards were written into the Bill. If the safeguards had not been there I would have voted against the Bill at that stage. This is a certain lesson for us.
10.15 p.m.
But I must emphasise that the situation has changed. There seems to be an acceptance in this House that a majority of people in Scotland are in favour of unrestricted drinking hours, but I see no basis for believing that. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) told me that there had been a poll in the Sunday Mail, but I hope that we shall not rely on a poll which requires people to respond to an invitation to write into a newspaper. That is the worst of all criteria, and therefore we must stop that nonsense.
It is clear that since the passing of the Bill there has been a great deal of opposition to it, not just on the question of the restrictions but to the Bill itself. One of my arguments for not voting against the Bill has been that in the long run it is necessary to liberalise our licensing law in order to bring about a more civilised situation. However, while that is a basis for making this change, it is not the basis for saying that we should proceed without the safeguards. In allowing seven-day opening we are thinking of those who drink, but in the safeguards we are concerned with those who do not drink but are surrounded by the drinkers.
The vast pressure for this change has come partly from those of us who accept 1542 the case for liberalisation, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), but most vocally from the brewers and the trade. I do not believe that the brewers of Scotland want a seven-day licence because they think that it will lead to less drink being taken. They want it because they expect more drink to be taken, and if that is not their view they are very bad business men, a quality I have not seen in them in the past. We would not have half the concert halls in Edinburgh if it were not for the brewers, and so a strange fruit is borne by the consequences of drinking.
The basic argument advanced by the other place—and I believe that it is the basic argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian—is that if the pub is not fit to open on a Sunday it is not fit to open the other six days. That is an irrefutable argument, except that it is not an argument with which we must deal. That is not the position that the Lords have taken up. They have said that if a pub is fit to open on six days it is fit also to open on a Sunday, but that does not follow and the argument has not been justified either here or in the other place. If a pub is fit to open for six days we must then examine the conditions which apply on the seventh There are plenty of circumstances in which we can endure certain disturbance and public nuisance in a certain period, but when that nuisance is applied over a longer period it becomes unendurable. That can certainly be the case in relation to Sunday opening in an area which can already be sore pressed with six-day drinking.

§ Mr. Neil Carmichael (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)
Does my hon. Friend not agree that one of the difficulties in his argument is that there will be a tendency for objections to be made in what one might term the good areas, while in the less fortunate areas, where there are perhaps already too many pubs, the people will be less articulate so the pubs will open on Sundays in those places but not in the other areas?

§ Mr. Buchan
What my hon. Friend says is a true generalisation. One of the pities is that this is bound to happen in all circumstances. Objections tend to come from more articulate people. However, if we considered his argument here, 1543 we should have to stop all planning objections because at planning inquiries the middle class tend to be articulate and the working class, particularly in the conditions which my hon. Friend has described, tend not to complain. It may be that they do not object, but that is no argument for not giving them the freedom to object.
It does not follow that because it is right for a pub to open for six days, it should therefore have a right to open on the seventh day. That argument has never been taken head on either here or in another place. That was the argument adopted by another place and that is where they made their error. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian and other hon. Members have made the same error.
Their argument is not irrefutable. What is irrefutable is the position of licences. Pubs are operating under licences granted for six days a week opening. The argument is now that we have changed the conditions under which the licences are granted. There are many activities for which licences are given on one basis and when that basis is altered, the licences have to be altered. The case is irrefutable. There must be a fresh application for a seventh-day licence. The circumstances in which the licence was granted will no longer prevail. Objections on the grounds in Schedule 4(6)—not in Clause 32—will have to be examined. They include the question of public nuisance and undue disturbance.
I find it intolerable that people who accepted this argument without a vote in this House on Report are now willing to capitulate when it comes back from the Lords. Where were their arguments on Report? That was the time for them to state their case.
We are right to reject the Lords amendment. The Lords have been illogical and have not understod the conditions of people in urban areas of Scotland.

§ Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison
As everybody else has spoken, I suppose that I had better speak, too. The Bill was discussed thoroughly in the Scottish Committee and I thought it was rather a good measure when it left this House. Everybody in South Edinburgh is delighted 1544 with it, and I shall support the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns)
We have had a good, broad and sometimes entertaining debate. I was a little worried when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McMillan) was exhorting us to take courage. Was it a little advertising on the side for a certain brand or brands?
The speech of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was one of the most entertaining. What the right hon. Gentleman said about the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) may be covered by using the phrase "God moves in a mysterious way". Perhaps that phrase is as appropriate as any other.
I shall make only one or two observations as the argument has been well rehearsed tonight and previously. I must confess that at the beginning I took very much the same position as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not want two separate standards. If the debate were about standards, I think that what the hon. Gentleman said would have been highly relevant.
In this instance the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is absolutely right. If we could see the Sunday standard applied to the rest of the week and could be sure that that was the objective, I should be more persuaded by what the hon. Gentleman said.
Another reason for my taking the view that normally I should be inclined to support the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian is that one of the factors I should like to see in going towards a more flexible system is consideration being given to locality. That is a matter that was raised in Committee. Surely it is right that consideration be given to the locality in which a public house is operating. If we have a restrictive system, it is much more likely that we shall have every public house either opening or closing. Such a situation would not necessarily meet the needs of the community.
There are two arguments that are of importance in this debate and they have been well rehearsed. One of the arguments was put forward by my hon. 1545 Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) while the other was introduced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). The first is that we have to accept that we are moving away from six-day licences to seven-day licences. We have to take into account that the public houses that now have six-day licences will be able to move to seven-day licences and that some of the considerations which held when those public houses received planning permission or licences for six days may not now apply—in other words, a completely different set of circumstances may apply when consideration is given to the granting of a seven-day licence.
These safeguards are, broadly speaking, on balance justified in meeting such a change. If they were not present, we should in one sense be disfranchising many people who would otherwise have made objections.
The second main argument is perhaps the most important of all. With respect, I suggest that it was the one that was missed in another place. It is the argument that was put forward by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are not talking about standards and the real issue is not concerned with standards. That is the point that was made when we debated the matter in Committee and when the principle was first agreed. We are talking about location. That is the important argument. The only way in which we can deal with location is by adopting the safeguard that the Government have provided. Location is important if we are to take account of the wishes of the people in Scotland who will be affected.
We are taking a great step forward, a step that I believe to be in the right direction. I am not like the Secretary of State in that, this is a principle that I have supported wholeheartedly throughout all stages. However, if we are to take steps such as this, we must have regard to the practical difficulties. I believe that the Government's safeguards meet the problem of location and that they should be supported. For that reason I hope that the Secretary of State is supported.

§ Mr. Millan
I shall speak only briefly because the arguments have been well rehearsed. From the speeches that have 1546 been made it seems that most Members agree with the view I expressed earlier.
As the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has said, in moving to Sunday opening we are moving into an entirely new situation. It is right that existing licences were granted in a different situation when there was not Sunday opening. All that the safeguards do is to provide an opportunity of procedure for the possibility of Sunday opening, or an application for Sunday opening to be considered. The safeguards do not prevent Sunday opening. They merely say that in the new circumstances there should be an opportunity for the arguments to be rehearsed and for objectors to be heard before any decision is made.
If we were to accept the Lords amendments we should be denying any sort of rights to those who may be seriously affected by Sunday opening. I accept the point that has been made by several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), that we have to have regard not only to the potential customers of the pubs on a Sunday but to others who may be affected by their opening.
10.30 p.m.
Sunday considerations are different from those of the rest of the week. I say that not from a sabbatarian point of view but for all sorts of social reasons. Certainly in terms of the social implications or the implications in an individual locality, opening on seven days is different from opening on six days.
Concerning standards, the argument works both ways. One could well argue that if the hurdle of Schedule 4 was not surmounted by the applicant—in other words, if the application for Sunday opening was turned down—the pub should be closed for the whole of the week, for the other six days as well. That is what hon. Members are arguing. That is as logical as an argument that says that because they are open for six days a week, they must automatically be opened on the seventh day. One could equally say that if the applicant cannot get through the Schedule 4 procedure, the result should be that the pub should be closed for the rest of the week. I seriously considered that as a logical answer to the problem. However, we 1547 must deal with the practicalities of the situation.
A number of hon. Members have not applied their minds to the practicalities of the situation, the attitudes of local councillors on licensing and so on. Even as Members of Parliament, whatever we feel about Sunday opening, it would not be right to put a publican at hazard in that if he applied for Sunday opening he might finish up by not being open at all for the rest of the week. That would be a hardship and the matter should not be dealt with in that way. Equally, however, it could be a hard-

§ Question accordingly agreed to.

§ Amendment made to the words so restored to the Bill: in page 4, line 36, at end insert:

1548

§ ship to many other people who are affected by pub opening times if they had no opportunity to put a point of view about the circumstances in which a pub not previously open on Sunday was to open on Sunday. That is what the safeguards are about.

§ I hope very much that the House will agree with my recommendation that we should disagree with the Lords amendment.

§ Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

§ The House divided: Ayes 90, Noes 36.

1547

Division No. 371.]	AYES	[10.32 p.m.
Archer, Pater	Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	Roper, John
Armstrong, Ernest	Gray, Hamish	Rose, Paul B.
Ashton, Joe	Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)
Bain, Mrs Margaret	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Banks, Robert	Hardy, Peter	Rowlands, Ted
Bean, R. E.	Harper, Joseph	Sainsbury, Tim
Beith, A. J.	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Bishop, E. S.	Henderson, Douglas	Small, William
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Hunter, Adam	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Buchan, Norman	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Stallard, A. W.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Campbell, Ian	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Cant, R. B.	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael	Judd, Frank	Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Coleman, Donald	Kaufman, Gerald	Stoddart, David
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Lamond, James	Strang, Gavin
Corrie, John	Leadbitter, Ted	Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Le Marchant, Spencer	Thompson, George
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)	McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Deakins, Eric	McElhone, Frank	Welsh, Andrew
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	McNamara, Kevin	White, James (Pollock)
Dempsey, James	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Whitehead, Phillip
Doig, Peter	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Wigley, Dafydd
Dormand, J. D.	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Ogden, Eric	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Eadie, Alex	Page, John (Harrow West)	Woodall, Alec
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Palmer, Arthur	Wrigglesworth, Ian
English, Michael	Penhaligon, David
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)	Prescott, John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Reid, George	Mr. Ted Graham and
Forrester, John	Rifkind, Malcolm	Mr. Alf Bates.
Golding, John

NOES
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Knox, David	Prescott, John
Brotherton, Michael	Lambie, David	Selby, Harry
Canavan, Dennis	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Skinner, Dennis
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	MacCormick, Iain	Sproat, Iain
Cohen, Stanley	McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Crawford, Douglas	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Torney, Tom
Evans, John (Newton)	Madden, Max	Urwin, T. W.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Watt, Hamish
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Mawby, Ray	Woof, Robert
Gourlay, Harry	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Havers, Sir Michael	Monro, Hector	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hicks, Robert	Ovenden, John	Mr. John P. Mackintosh and
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Phipps, Dr Colin	Mr. Hugh McCartney.
Johnson, James (Hull West)

1548

§ 'other than an application under paragraph 11A of that Schedule where no objection is made in relation to the application'.—[Mr. Millan.]

1549

§ Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 5, line 18, at end insert: and the clerk of the board shall accompany the board when it so retires unless the board otherwise directs

§ Mr. Millan
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment places beyond doubt the position of the clerk of the board when a board decides to retire to consider any decision. There may be some doubt on this matter. The Law Society of Scotland drew the matter to our attention and this amendment will put the situation right.

§ Question put and agreed to.