HC Deb 03 February 1982 vol 17 cc457-67

CLOSING HOURS FOR TAKE-AWAY FOOD SHOPS

Mr. Raison

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'Subject to subsection (5) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, we are to take Government amendments Nos. 4, 12 and 16.

Mr. Raison

I want to say a brief general word about part III of the Bill.

As the House will know, on Second Reading and in Committee our proposals for empowering local authorities to control the late-night opening of take-away food shops attracted criticism from hon. Members on both sides. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and I gave undertakings to consider a number of matters. We also undertook to consult further the local authority assocations and the organisations which represent the operators of take-away food shops. These consultations have been carried out by the Home Office, and the amendments that I have tabled are the result of our conclusions on them.

Essentially, clauses 3 to 5 of the Bill as it now stands give a district council power to make a closing order requiring a take-away food shop which is open between the hours of 11 pm and 5 am to close for all or some of that time if the council is satisfied that that would be desirable to prevent unreasonable disturbance to residents in the neighbourhood of the premises. The keeper of such a shop is to be given a right of appeal to a magistrates' court, and thence to the Crown court, against a decision by the district council to make a closing order, or, once the order has been made, against a refusal by the council to revoke or vary the hours specified in the order.

The most controversial issue has been the earliest hour from which a closing order may operate. The trade has argued that if shops could be required to close at this hour they would lose a substantial proportion of their trade. On the other hand, the local authority associations have said that they should have the discretion to require premises to close at 11 pm, because they are in residential areas where many people have gone to bed at that time.

We considered the arguments and came to the conclusion that a reasonable compromise would be to change the earliest hour to midnight. A further reason is that that is the hour which has operated in Greater London under the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1968.

The National Federation of Fish Friers has said that the amendment will satisfy its members. The Take-Away and Fast Food Federation, however, wants the hour to be extended to 1 am on most nights and 2 am on Fridays and Saturdays. We think that that would be too late and that it should be left to the discretion of the district councils, which we are entitled to believe will act reasonably. In any case, they will be subject to the supervision of the courts.

We have also decided to insert further safeguards for the operators. Briefly, they will have a right to make representations to the council before an order can be made, and the council will be able to make an order only if it has received complaints from residents in the neighbourhood.

There is also a provision requiring councils to deal expeditiously with applications from the keeper to revoke or vary the hours of closing order.

The amendments have necessitated substantial redrafting of this part of the Bill. If the House accepts the amendment we think that this part will represent a fair balance between the interests of the take-away operators and their customers and those who live in the neighbourhood of the establishments.

There is a possibility that the clause as drafted might be held not to apply to premises used as a cafe during the day and as a take-away food shop at night. Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 12 and 16 are intended to close that gap.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Watford)

The House should be under no illusion about how important this part of the Bill is. My constituents will be grateful to my right hon. Friend.

I received today a letter from one of my constituents who had heard rumours—in the event unfounded—that this part of the Bill would not prosper. My constituent, who lives in Brixton Road, Watford, and who has suffered considerably from these establishments in question, wrote: After last night it was almost unbearable—like trying to sleep in a car park. The noise and fumes were terrible, going on well past midnight, and also the rubbish situation is just the same. You said in your letter we were to contact you if we still want the Bill to go through. Of course we do. We all hope it won't be too long. I regret that in this part of the Bill we refer continually to closing orders, which seems to imply that it gives local authorities the power to close down the establishments altogether, which is not the purpose.

I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has extended, in amendment No. 7—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

Order. We are discussing only amendments Nos. 3, 4, 12 and 16. We shall come to amendment No. 7 in due course.

Mr. Garel-Jones

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may return to the matter when we reach that amendment.

I regret that we have used the term "closing order", because it has given rise to a misleading view held not only by the industry but by the general public.

Mr. Whitlock

Did I understand you to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we shall have a separate debate on amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10? It appeared that the Minister was talking about those amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

We shall come to amendment No. 7 soon.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 2, line 31, leave out `exclusively off the premises' and insert

'off the premises, other than—

  1. (a) any premises that are a late night refreshment house, as defined in section 1 of the Late Night Refreshment Houses Act 1969; and
  2. (b) anypremises that are exempt licensed premises as defined in that section;'.—[Mr. Raison.]

1.30 am
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 33, leave out from 'satisfied' to end of line 37 and insert: that residents in the neighbourhood of the premises have been unreasonably disturbed either by persons resorting to the premises or by the use of the premises for the supply of means or refreshments and that it is desirable to make such an order to prevent the said residents from being further so disturbed.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21.

Mr. Viggers

This is a technical matter, but also, I believe, a matter of some importance. My attention was first drawn to this part of the Bill through contact with a constituency fast-food shop. I was troubled to see the manner in which local authorities are given power to act on evidence that would not be accepted in most circumstances and certainly not in any court of law. Parliament should be certain about the need before it imposes a restriction.

The Bill seeks to restrict food shop facilities and to damage a fairly substantial trade that involves over 20,000 fast-food outlets. Clause 3(1) would allow a closing order to be made to prevent residents from being unreasonably disturbed. There is no burden of proof on the residents to show that they have been disturbed. Mere apprehension that they might be disturbed is enough. Meanwhile, the shopkeeper, I submit, is placed in the invidious position of having to persuade the council that such apprehension is groundless. In other words, the shopkeeper must prove a negative. This has always been recognised as a burden that should not be placed on anyone by law, if possible.

If the Bill is passed in its present form, the shopkeeper whose premises are complained about will find that he is subjected to the closing order imposed by the local authority, without any actual disturbance ever having necessarily been alleged or proved. Apprehension is enough. The innocent shopkeeper has a closing order placed upon his premises. His remedy is to appeal to the magistrates court, no doubt incurring legal costs in so doing. The magistrates have the duty of deciding the case. Their criteria will presumably be based on clause 3(1). Mere apprehension of the offence will, or could, suffice to substantiate the closing order. On appeal to the Crown court, the criteria are the same.

I urge my right hon. Friend to accept that natural justice requires that no shopkeeper should be penalised by a closing order unless the residents first establish that they have actually been unreasonably disturbed and that it is desirable to prevent further such disturbance. The Government have apparently tried to take account of the uncertainty in the Bill as originally drafted by bringing forward Government amendment No. 20, under which a closing order would not be made unless the residents had complained. There is, however, no requirement that the complaint should be justified.

Natural justice should require that the complaint is justified. Clarity and fairness require that residents should have been disturbed, that they rely on that disturbance, and then seek the closing order to prevent further disturbance.

Mr. Raison

I shall refer to the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), but, I should like first to explain Government amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21. The effect of Government amendments Nos. 18 and 20 is very much in line with what I stated in my intervention during the previous debate. It will be to restrict the power of a district council to make a closing order in those cases where local residents have complained that they have been unreasonably disturbed by the late night opening of a particular take-away shop. The council will not be restricted to the substance of these complaints in deciding whether an order should be made. It will be obliged to take all relevant considerations into account, but evidence of actual complaints will be required to trigger off the procedure for making an order. These amendments have been agreed by the local authority associations and the three trade organisations that we have consulted. Government amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are purely consequential drafting amendments.

*************** The purpose of my hon. Friend's amendment is to restrict a council's power to make a closing order to cases where it is satisfied that the late night opening of a particular take-away shop has already caused unreasonable disturbance to residents. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that we have incorporated the spirit of that in our amendment to restrict the power of councils to act only when they have received complaints of disturbance from residents in the neighbourhood.

We have introduced fuller safeguards in our amendments, and there is an appeal to the magistrates court. My hon. Friend referred to councils acting on evidence that would not be accepted in a court of law. If that is so, a court of law is available to test it. My hon. Friend seemed to be asking for councils to act as courts of law themselves. I do not think that they are equipped to make the kind of decisions in assessing the evidence and reaching a verdict that he seemed to imply. I do not think that that can be the role of local authorities, because they simply do not operate in that way.

I believe that the provisions as revised by our amendments are reasonable and fair. They are acceptable to the three relevant trade associations. I hope that in the light of that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Viggers

I drafted amendment No. 5 before I had the opportunity to see the amendments proposed by my right hon. Friend. I accept that they take account of the points that I had in mind. It is therefore with pleasure that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Raison

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 39 leave out from "and" to second "the" in line 41 and insert "prohibiting".

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we are to take Government amendments Nos. 14 and 15.

Mr. Raison

This amendment is purely to enhance the drafting of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are consequential upon amendments Nos. 17, 22 and 26, to which I shall come later and which specify in greater detail the procedures for serving closing and variation orders. I hope that the House will accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Raison

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 2, leave out "11 o'clock at night" and insert "midnight".

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, we are to take the following amendments:

No. 8, in page 3, line 2, leave out "11 o'clock at night" and insert one o'clock in the morning".

  • No. 9, in page 3, line 2, leave out "11" and inset "12".
  • No. 10, in page 3, line 3, leave out "5" and insert "6".
  • No. 11, in page 3, line 3, at end insert
but in respect of Saturday and Sunday mornings the hours specified shall commence not ealier than two o'clock in the morning". No. 13, in page 3, line 19, leave out "11 o'clock at night" and insert one o'clock in the morning, and in respect of Saturday and Sunday morning the hours specified shall commence not earlier than two o'clock in the morning".

Mr. Raison

The purpose of the amendment and of those tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is to put back from 11 pm to midnight the earliest hour that may be specified in a closing order. I have already said why we believe that this is right. I understand that the amendment will satisfy the National Federation of Fish Friers, which represents 4,000 fish and chip shops. I know that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) and the Take-away and Fast Food Federation would prefer the hour to be 1 am from Monday to Friday and 2 am on Saturday and Sunday. As I have said, I believe that that would be too late and would undermine the purpose of the provision. I believe that our proposal is a reasonable and sensible compromise. I hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. Cryer

I can only say that the amendment sounds a very sensible and reasonable compromise. It is one that I suggested and, by and large, when people follow me they are being reasonable and sensible.

Dr. Summerskill

I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has said. He and I have one important thing in common. Halifax and Keighley share the branch of the National Federation of Fish Friers, which felt strongly that an amendment should be made. I am sure that it is welcomed by everybody in Yorkshire, which is the home of fish and chips. Socially, financially and nutritionally, this food is of great value to people in Yorkshire and has given them the energy, the warmth, the muscle and the brain for which they are well known. I welcome the amendment.

Mr. Gary Waller (Brighouse and Spenborough)

May I complete the triumvirate of Yorkshire Members who greatly welcome the change introduced by my right hon. Friend? Without it, local authorities might well have come under pressure from a small number of residents who would prefer the shops to close earlier, and they would have to act without regard for the large number of people who prefer to use the fish and chip shops between 11 pm and midnight. This is an excellent compromise and I am sure that it will be welcomed throughout the North of England.

Mr. Whitlock

The Minister may feel that he has significantly helped the food trade by tabling these amendments, but I assure him that that view is not held by the majority of people in the trade. No great cheers have gone up around the country in take-away food shops because of what he has done.

The amendments marginally limit the restrictions on the trade contained in the Bill's original proposals, but they have not stilled the fears of the take-away food trade about what may happen when the Bill is put into operation.

In Committee, I pointed out that on Second Reading the Minister said that one of the criteria used in deciding to introduce a Bill such as this was that it should be non-controversial. When replying on Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said that such measures must be largely "non-controversial and precedented".

In Committee, I and other hon. Members sought to show that the provisions of clause 3 were both controversial and unprecedented. In spite of that, this industry, which is so vitally affected, was not consulted in any way before the Bill was printed. It has been watching our proceedings with fear and trepidation.

Other hon. Members voiced the same points in Committee, because of which, on 15 December, the Under-Secretary asked that our amendments on closing hours be withdrawn in order that it be left to our good intentions fo find out how we discuss these matters with interested parties".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 15 December 1981, c.59.] Because of the hon. Gentleman's assurances about discussions and good intentions, the amendments were withdrawn. The secretary of the Take-away and Fast Food Federation wrote immediately to the Minister of State and asked for the promised discussions. They have not taken place.

On 21 January, five weeks after it was written, a civil servant wrote back referring to the "recent letter" of the federation and sought its comments within five days. That followed the dragging of feet on the part of the Home Office.

The Minister and his civil servants may regard that as discussion and consultation, but that is not the view of people in the trade. They feel that they have been brushed off. That view was expressed in another letter sent by the secretary of the federation to the Minister. A reply to that was received yesterday—2 February.

1.45 am

The civil servant concerned wrote as follows: With regard to your allegation that Ministers have failed to abide by an undertaking given in Committee as to further discussions, I can only say that this was not intended to imply that a meeting would take place, simply that the Home Office would consult with the local authority and trade associations to see if a measure of agreement could be reached. This we have done through correspondence and I think you will agree that the result has not been disadvantageous to the trade interests. It has not been disadvantageous to the interests of those concerned, but they feel deceived because discussions have not taken place. There have been no worthwhile discussions. The Home Office has merely played a cat and mouse game. How can anyone try to see if a measure of agreement could be reached when no meeting has taken place? The final sentence reads: However, if you feel that it would be helpful at this stage for us to meet. I am at your disposal. The letter was written on 2 February, seven weeks after the Minister had talked about discussions and good intentions and seven weeks after a meeting had been requested. When the letter was written it was too late for any approach to be made that would have had a bearing on these discussions tonight. What of the future? Does the final sentence about discussions mean anything? Does this belated willingness to meet on the part of the Home Office mean that there is still a possibility of real discussions on these issues, and that when they have taken place amendments will be tabled in another place that will save the take-away food industry from what it feels is threatening it? It does feel threatened. As I said in Committee, many of the take-away food shops obtain 20 per cent., 30 per cent., 40 per cent., and even 50 per cent. of their takings after midnight. To cut off that significant proportion—

Mr. Raison

It is too much to say that we are cutting off those takings. We are merely proposing that after midnight there should be a power, if a local authority feels that things are going wrong, to take action. It is wrong to describe that as "cutting off'. Is the hon. Gentleman going to repeat the declaration of his interest that he made in Committee?

Mr. Whitlock

I willingly declare my interest, in that I am a parliamentary consultant to an organisation that has the Take-away and Fast Food Federation Ltd. as one of its clients.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

On the Opposition Benches!

Mr. Whitlock

That is the declaration that I made in Committee. The take-away food industry is afraid of what the local authorities will do when the Bill is enacted. It fears that the consequences for it will be disastrous.

Take-away shops remain open at night because it is felt that there is a demand for the services that they provide. The services are demanded by, for example, those who live in bedsitters who do not have adequate cooking facilities, by those who have had an evening's entertainment and cannot afford the money or the time to go to restaurants, by shift workers—

Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South)

By Members of Parliament.

Mr. Whitlock

—and by all those who work unsocial hours. The list includes policemen, firemen, nurses, taxi drivers, airport staff and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said, Members of Parliament. It extends to petrol station personnel and gas board fitters who are attending emergencies at night. All these people and many others will be disadvantaged by the earlier closing of take-away food shops. If that earlier closing comes, many will be rendered unemployed because the profitable side of takeaway shops will disappear.

In Committee I pointed out that in more than 22 years' membership of the House I have had many complaints about the behaviour of youths leaving youth clubs and people leaving pubs causing disturbances, making noises, causing quarrels, urinating in doorways and gardens, about traffic noise, litter from supermarkets and many other forms of nuisance, but I have not had one complaint about disturbances near take-away food shops.

My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) gave details of the lawlessness in his constituency near take-away food shops and asked me to contact the chief constable of Nottinghamshire to obtain similar particulars. I wrote to the chief constable, and the deputy chief constable replied: I am sorry but we do not keep statistics specifically about problems created in specific situations and I am sure you will appreciate it would be almost an impossible task to try to provide you with the detail you seek. I think it is, however, fair to say that there is a certain amount of problem from a police point of view at late night take-away food shops, and in particular fish and chip shops. We have had over the past few months complaints from both the City and County Council about noise, nuisance and general rude behaviour of youths who are attracted to such premises simply because they are there. There are, of course, many shops which create no problems for us at all and one type of take-away shop that gives little problem surprisingly is the Chinese take-away food shop. So there is no great record of crime in Nottinghamshire around the take-away food shops such as occurs in Workington.

In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington revealed that he had contacted the Nottingham city council. As reported at column 126, he said: It seems that the Nottingham district authority has a special acoustics squad, which is called the 'SAS', to deal with the problems of nuisance outside late-night cafes and take-away food shops."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 22 December 1981; c. 126.] My hon. Friend was claiming that the special acoustics squad was used exclusively for activities around take-away food shops. That was news to me. Therefore, I wrote to the chief executive and town clerk of Nottingham, who replied: Although it is quite true that there is within Mr. Hill's department"— Mr. Hill is the chief environmental health officer— a team of officers known colloquially as the 'special acoustics squad', it is certainly not the case that these officers ate exclusively engaged in dealing with problems arising from late night cafes and take-away food shops.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Not exclusively.

Mr. Whitlock

Not exclusively. They are in fact responsible for investigating all complaints of excessive noise and their work is not related to any specific type of premises. Indeed, I understand from Mr. Hill that complaints about noise from late night food premises are fairly uncommon—only one such complaint has been recorded during the past year. No horrific situation exists in Nottingham such as seems to exist in Workington. The city of Nottingham has never sought private legislation to control the activities of take-away food shops.

What conclusions can be drawn from all this? The same laws of the Land apply to the city of Nottingham as to elsewhere in England and Wales. The city of Nottingham manages to ensure that the services of take-away food shops are made available to those who need them without the disturbances that occur in other places. All this points to the fact that clause 3 is unnecessary, as was powerfully argued in Committee, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) from his standpoint as the chairman of a planning committee for many years.

When food shops are closed and the less well-off members of the community are deprived of the services they need, the vandals, the litterbugs, the foul-mouthed, the feckless, the inebriated, the inconsiderate, the noisy, the nasty, the anti-social, the misfits, the don't-care-adamn-for-anybody brigade will still be around to inflict their inconvenience and nuisance upon the community at large.

It is so often said that doctors and legislators treat the symptoms of disease, be they medical or social, rather than the disease itself. In this Bill, not only are we not treating the social malaise that lies behind the problems at which the Bill is aimed, we are not treating the symptoms either. The Government are merely ensuring that the symptoms of the disease occur in another way, around some other kind of establishment. The Bill will do nothing to deal with the drink problem, which is the main cause of disturbances around take-away food shops. It is not teaching people to be litter-conscious or considerate of others. It is making no attempt to inculcate standards of any kind. The Government are merely saying that the Bill is needed because there are trouble makers of one kind or another in the community. It will be possible under this Bill to punish the majority of law-abiding citizens who have shown that they need the services of the take-away food shops. Under the Bill I feel sure that many people will be put out of work as shops are closed down.

Mr. Tony Speller (Devon, North)

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) comes from a fine city. Those of us who come from coastal areas that have a considerable tourist and holiday traffic are aware of the need to retain a balance between the interests, which I also represent, of fish friers and take-away and fast food retailers, and those of the residents of these areas. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State because these measures show that that balance is being rightly held.

It does no service to my friends and constituents in the fast food and fish and chip shop business if the residents feel that in some way the retailers are obtaining favour at the expense of the residents. Similarly, it does the residents no good to feel that in some way they can, if they wish, get rid of the fast food shop, which is not always a most popular neighbour. By retaining the balance, my right hon. Friend is keeping a sense of proportion.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I intervene briefly to urge the Minister to take the opportunity of wholeheartedly condemning the reports that have appeared in the trade press which have grossly misrepresented the position of Parliament and of the Government in introducing the Bill.

I do not want to be churlish, but I argued vigorously for local authorities to have the right, where abuse took place, to close premises at 11 o'clock, and I am sorry that the Minister has had to change it to midnight. He will recall from his conversations with the different associations of local authorities that they all made representations in favour of 11 pm. In the Cumbria Bill from my constituency I think the time given was 11.30 pm. After the Committee proceedings I thought that we had arrived at an informal agreement that there would be a threshold at about 11.30 pm. Now it has been changed to midnight—I presume as a result of pressure.

I hope that the noble Lords—if that be the term with which to describe them—will take the opportunity, when the Bill comes before them, to change the time from midnight to 11.30 pm.

2 am

Mr. Garel-Jones

I join the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) in his remarks about the trade press. Indeed, the letter that I read to the House was one of a crop that I have received from people in my constituency expressing concern about the future of the Bill as a result of articles they had read in the Catering Times. Those articles give a misleading impression about the intentions of my right hon. Friend and the Minister towards the Bill.

I remind the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) that it is not without interest that my right hon. Friend thought it necessary to intervene in his speech. The hon. Member was suggesting, because of the use of the unfortunate term "closing order", that the Bill would somehow bring to an end the fast food catering industry. My right hon. Friend dealt with that matter adequately and I need not pursue it further. If Nottingham is a city in which those problems do not exist, the hon. Member has nothing to fear. We can, I hope, assume that the local authority in Nottingham is responsible, and if it is not receiving complaints—the hon. Member tells us that it is not—it will have no need whatever to invoke the powers given to it under the Bill.

I associate my self with the points made by the hon. Member for Workington. We saw earlier a triumvirate of Yorkshire Members—the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) was one of them—defending the fish and chip shops. I regret very much that my right hon. Friend has moved from 11 pm to midnight. It is simply an enabling time. It gives the local authority the power to act within that time scale. It does not in any circumstances impose upon the local authority the duty to shut down fish and chip shops in Yorkshire or fast food take-away shops in Watford.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that most authorities will tend to be responsible in operating the provision. They will recognise that the establishments concerned provide a service to the public and a service which many of our constituents appreciate.

The House should not be mislead by the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North. The problem is very serious in my constituency. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) is here and I know that he is concerned about it, too. It is indeed a serious problem for many of our constituents. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) is also assenting.

My constituents and the constituents of most hon. Members here will be very pleased to see their local authority given powers to act in this area, and I have no doubt that my own local authority and most local authorities will use those powers in a responsible way to safeguard the interests of residents and at the same time to ensure that the fast food industry can continue to give the service that it has given the public in the past. Therefore, I welcome these provisions.

Dr. David Clark (South Shields)

I should like to follow immediately the points made by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). This is a major problem, as was recognised in Committee, when we had a full and frank discussion on it.

Obviously the problem is greater in some communities than in others. I was particularly impressed by the evidence produced in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). He quoted figures from the police in Cumbria showing the number of convictions connected with take-away food shops. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) said, not only take-away food shops are affected. Many of those at the food shops had been drinking at local pubs. It presented a serious problem.

I have received many letters from various organisations. For example the North-East Chinese community contacted me almost in a state of hysteria. They had been led to believe that their take-away Chinese food shops would be closed at 11 o'clock. I had to reassure them that it was only permissive legislation. I hope that the Government will use all the facilities at their disposal to get the message across to the non-English communities, which may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

The compromise that the Government have reached is probably right. I had thought that we could tie it in with one hour after the local pub closing tine, but I appreciate that that would cause administrative difficulties. On balance, the Government have got it right.

  1. '(12A) In this Part of this Act "the keeper", in relation to any premises, means the person having the conduct or management of the premises.'.
  2. '(12B) Until sections 6(1) and (2) below come in force this section shall have effect as if the following paragraph were substituted for subsection (1)(b) above—
    1. "(b) a house, room, shop or building which is licensed for the sale of beer, cider, wine or spirits;".'.

Forward to