HC Deb 27 March 1987 vol 113 cc718-29

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[30 January]— That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

1.16 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

The Bill was introduced on 30 January by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), and the whole House has congratulated him on his good fortune. I, alas, cannot congratulate him on the long title. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has already said that there is considerable dissatisfaction about the lack of flexibility in the licensing hours, but the narrowness of the Bill's provisions do not serve well either the House or the British public.

The licensing principle in respect of the consumption of liquor is sometimes misrepresented. In any debate on these subjects reference is made to the accident by which licensing began during the 1914–18 war. Reference is made to munitions and Lloyd George and to the fact that we are still hampered by those wartime impositions. Licensing is, however, appropriate. The present laws and regulations may not be the best, but it is questionable to claim that some sort of licensing and control is inappropriate. Although it can be beneficial, alcohol is a dangerous substance. Our previous debate illustrated that fact.

Society has become much more complex since the regulations were introduced. Years ago, carts and horses were not licensed. It was only when motor cars were invented that motor cars and their drivers had to be licensed. The philosophy of Conservative Members is that the influence of the state must be got rid of as much as possible. However, even in the most extreme Right-wing regimes that Conservative Members may personally favour there are regulations to deal with dangerous substances. For example, nobody would think of getting rid of the regulations covering dangerous substances in chemical works, or in nuclear power stations, or in any other manufacturing process; nor would they think of getting rid of the regulations covering guns or crossbows, a subject that we debated a short time ago. Therefore, there must be some form of regulation by statute covering dangerous substances. I think there is universal agreement that alcohol, given its conditions of sale, taxation and use, must at least be seen as a potentially dangerous substance. The recent crime figures showing an increase in violence, which I shall deal with shortly, bear that out.

As I have said, the Bill deals with only one aspect of these regulations—the period of licensing. It increaes the period during which licensed premises may, on application to justices, be kept open. That period is 13 hours, during which time the premises can be open for only 12 hours between 10.30 am and 11.30 pm. If a licence is given for a flexible hour, the licensee will decide which hour out of those 13 hours he must close his premises.

Judging by the speeches in the earlier part of Second Reading, this looks a reasonable arrangement. Many reasonable speeches were made by Conservative hon. Members. Indeed, one can make a reasonable case based entirely on hours and human freedom, but I want to put this into a rather wider perspective, because we cannot dissociate hours and availability from the whole question of consumption of alcohol. its effect on the general health of the nation, the use to which it is put and the dangers that might arise from an extra half hour in the general licensing period of many premises.

The hon. Member for Eastwood will agree, I hope, that at first glance the relatively modest effect of the Bill seems to be an extra half-hour of drinking time or drinking-up time in most licensed premises. I think I see him nod assent to that assumption. That would be the general effect of the Bill in any premises that avail themselves of the facility—if it is approved.

I shall not dwell on the consumption of alcohol in other places. The consumption of alcohol on licensed premises has many advantages, and those were advertised in the previous debate. Of course there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of alcohol in the home, and its general availability is now much greater that it was. The House may or may not have been cognisance of the social repercussions of that on society. Television advertising and example—that the smart thing to do is to consume increased amounts of alcohol—are beyond the scope of the Bill.

When the hon. Member for Eastwood replies to the debate, perhaps he will tell us whether he has made any estimate of the likely increase in hours during which licensed premises will be open. I am not sure of the present general availability of alcohol, because that varies from one part of Britain to another. No doubt licensed premises will not make use of all the time during which they can open. It is entirely up to the licensee to open for a shorter time than he did before, and if there is a movement towards later closing—which I suspect will be the trend if the Bill goes through—there will be many half-hours at the end of the day.

I should also be interested to hear whether the hon. Gentleman has made any estimate of the increased hours that will be available in on-licence premises. In the previous debate I think it was said that there would probably be a 75 per cent. take-up of the facilities that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

There is a good deal of support for well-managed houses on the on-system. There is much advantage in having consumption in the right atmosphere under the right sort of management and conditions. That view was universal in the House during the last debate. Well managed clubs and houses have an attraction of their own, and the consumption of alcohol can be carried out there in a proper, well-regulated atmosphere in which civilised behaviour prevails and there are no difficulties. That is a generally accepted and advantageous feature of the existing regulations. It is one of the distinct advantages of the present regulation and licensing system, particularly for the brewers, who can ensure that the licensees—in free houses, the management—live up to the standards required by the locality.

We all know that there are pressures on some licensees to increase consumption, particularly if they are managers who are not licensing their own houses. Not everyone agrees to increased consumption, and some licensing sessions can become fairly lively when the subject is discussed. Police sanctions may be applied, and there may be complaints from neighbours.

Not long ago, I was receiving constant complaints in my constituency about certain licensed premises. I told the person concerned that all he had to do was to go to the next brewster session and complain. The next day, I went to the premises to check, and found that they had been closed by agreement between the police and the brewers, who agreed that things had gone too far and had to stop. That is another advantage of the present system, and I am sure that none of us is against it.

We must examine the effect of the extra time that may become available, and, in particular, the half-hour at the end of the day. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Eastwood said: The British Tourist Authority has estimated that the Bill would create about 50,000 extra jobs and the brewers' estimate is an extra 25,000."—[Official Report, 30 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 640.] That is an enormous number of extra jobs. No hon. Member would wish any opportunity for increased employment to be cast aside lightly. Employment in any area may have advantages, but I want the hon. Member for Eastwood to tell us what those jobs mean. If they are to be created, the people who perform them must be paid. The increased income to pay for 75,000 jobs must conic from somewhere, and I can only conclude that it will come from the profits or turnover generated by the increased consumption on licensed premises.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us how much extra consumption will take place. If the new jobs are to be sustained, the cash for them must come from somewhere. It can only come from money paid over the bar, in cash or credit, for the increased consumption.

The Bill may have many more repercussions than are suggested in its long and short titles. If some of the increased consumption takes place towards the end of the day, common sense and experience suggest that that may have social implications.

I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Burton has left the Chamber, because I am about to quote the remarks that he made on 30 January. He said: Those of us who practise in the criminal courts know that most criminal drunks commit their acts of violence in or immediately after those last moments of drinking-up time at a late hour."—[Official Report, 30 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 643.] That is not entirely news, but at least it comes from an authoritative source— the person who represents that constituency and who is involved in the courts.

If an extra half-hour is relatively easily obtainable, there will be quite a lot of consumption at the end of the day. Many of the effects of that increased consumption—an unspecified amount—are bound to be felt in that last half-hour. Whatever the closing time, there will be that period to which the hon. and learned Member for Burton referred. People will be there late at night when violence, alas, is more likely to occur. The Bill does not refer to any possibility that remedial measures will be taken in relation to alcohol consumption and crimes of violence. Any hon. Member, any other person arid certainly the police know that there is a relationship between the two.

Unfortunately, we have all in our parliamentary and private lives come across the damaging relationship between over-consumption arid acts of violence, criminal damage and offences against the person. That relationship is not quantified, but it exists. Not long ago, the whole country was staggered by an enormous act of violence in the Ealing vicarage case. One of the people involved was a former constituent, because I was the Member for Acton, which is now represented by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). Those people tanked up on drink before the incident. I know that the consumption took place not on licensed premises but in their home and, therefore, would be outside the scope of the Bill, but we know that it had that effect.

When I was the Member for Acton I was involved in a case, similar to cases with which all hon. Members are familiar of after-hours drinking. The publican wrongly allowed after-hours drinking and a murder occurred in the bar. I had on my hands the cases of two fatherless families—in one the person was dead and in the other the person who had perpetrated the crime had gone to prison—one widow and one virtual widow. We all know that the relationship between rapid consumption late at night and violence is strong. If any hon. Member does not agree, he should go to his local hospital's casualty unit.

Newham has some well-conducted clubs connected with political parties. The Labour and Conservative parties have well-conducted clubs which do not come into any of the categories about which I have spoken. But there are other places, and not long ago some people bleeding profusely arrived at Newham general hospital. Not long after, others who had been involved in the affray in that club arrived by motor car and the affray continued inside the casualty unit. Blood spurted on to the walls, equipment was smashed up and staff were terrified. We must admit that hospitals are places where violence is now much more frequent. It relates either to personal disputes while people are waiting to be dealt with or to alcohol-related violence of the sort that I have described.

The House would be wrong to give a Second Reading to a Bill which virtually permitted a universal—I shall give way to the hon. Member for Eastwood if he disagrees—extention of half an hour from 11 pm to 11.30 pm for licensed premises which applied for it.

Mr. John Ryman (Blyth Valley)

Will my hon. Friend deal with two specific points? First, why should millions of decent, law-abiding people be prevented from social drinking on a wider scale simply because a relatively small proportion of criminals happen to be affected by drink? Secondly, his argument flies in the face of the example of Scotland, where the extension and relaxation of licensing laws has, according to the police, reduced crimes which are related to violence and drink.

Mr. Spearing

I shall deal with the Scottish point shortly. First, I shall deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) said about criminals. I suggest that, alas, a great deal of the difficulties between people which result in personal injury are not criminal in that people are professional or determined criminals. They probably happen as a result of personal arguments and difficulties which become criminal offences because there is damage to the person or property as a result of the altercation. In other words, I am talking not about habitual criminals, but people who are either convicted or charged with criminal behaviour in which alcohol plays a part. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley would agree that that is a well-established fact. To allow an extra half an hour, which would add to that risk, is something about which the House and the country must think clearly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley asked fairly why the vast majority of people should have to forgo their freedom of an extra half an hour of comfortably dringing to protect people who may abuse that half an hour. That is the essence of his question. We may differ, but in view of the fact that alcohol is available—rightly or wrongly— relatively easily at off-licences or in a domestic environment, that is a price that many people would be willing to and probably should pay. After all, 11 pm is not early—it used to be much earlier than that—and a line must be drawn at some time. Anybody who has been involved in a motor accident, or who has been an innocent victim of somebody who has been tanked-up with alcohol, would agree with me that there should be some sort of social arrangement and that licensed hours should be limited within reasonable hours.

I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley and Conservative Members that that wide extension of licensing hours to 11.30 pm cannot but increase the amount of alcohol-related violence to the person and, alas, probably bad driving on our roads. That is an incontrovertible fact, of which the House should take note. For all these reasons we should pause before giving a Second Reading to the Bill. The relationships are clear.

The matter of Scotland was raised earlier in the debate. The statistics that were given need some comment. As I understand it, the statistics which have been used are those of drunken behaviour, or at least charges relating to drunken persons. As I understand it, other charges have increased, which may or may not be related to the consumption of alcohol. I have been told that the number of breach of the peace charges has increased by 16 per cent. and the number of petty assault charges has gone up by 20 per cent. I do not say that all or any of those charges were associated with alcohol, but a policeman charging a drunk involved in an incident in which a person was assaulted would probably charge the assailant with petty assault or breach of the peace rather than with being drunk. Therefore, I suggest that, although there may be some encouraging signs from the Scottish experience, it is not fully proven.

An hon. Member suggested in the previous debate that the police in Scotland approved of the change, but it turned out that they were happy because their work would be staggered over more hours and they would not have to deal with so many offences at the same time. That is a reasonable view for the police to hold, but I question whether it is a good answer in relation to the social context in which drink and violence must be placed.

I understand why the Bill has been proposed, but we must think carefully about the implications. The hon. Member for Eastwood has plucked out only one aspect of the matter. The repercussions cannot be known or discussed, though his speech suggests that the consumption of alcohol cannot but rise if the predictions about the employment effects are anywhere near correct, or even only 30 per cent. accurate.

The relationship between drink and violent crime, which we all deplore, is clear, and I do not believe that there is a sufficient case for giving the Bill a Second Reading.

1.42 pm
Mr. Rob Hayward (Kingswood)

I had the good fortune a couple of years ago to take part in a television debate with police officers from Strathclyde who have to deal with a part of Britain whose people have the reputation of being among the heaviest drinkers. The most senior officer was asked whether he would want to revert to the old drinking laws in Scotland and he answered emphatically that the number of cases of violent crime resulting directly from drinking in pubs had decreased.

There remains a problem about overall alcohol consumption, because drink is generally available in supermarkets and other such places, but the Bill proposes only that pubs and licensed premises should be allowed to operate more flexibly.

There is undoubtedly a substantial anomaly in the law in England and Wales. The law was introduced during the first world war and licensing laws have moved on in other areas. It is not fair that tenants and managers of licensed premises should be restricted in ways that other people are not.

The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to crimes that may have resulted from drinking, but he was unable to confirm that the drink was consumed on licensed premises. There is a strong argument for saying that people in pubs drink in more controlled circumstances than do those who drink in other public areas or in their own homes.

Mr. Spearing

The hon. Gentleman accepts what I said about drink bought in supermarkets; perhaps we are wrong to allow it to be so readily available in such places. However, the hon. Gentleman must accept that, although it is not possible to quantify the issue, everyone—and particularly women—knows to watch for the time that the pubs turn out. That has been the case for years and in some premises, not necessarily the majority, there is a significant connection between turning-out time and what happens afterwards. If the hon. Gentleman denies that fact, he should go along to his local hospital and see what happens.

Mr. Hayward

I do not deny it; I am aware of the problems. However, drinking establishments in Scotland are now much more civilised places than they were before the amendment of the Scottish licensing laws. The evolution in behaviour during the late-evening swill that we have seen there way well apply in England and Wales. At present the pressure is on the drinker to consume his drink by drinking-up time. Anyone who has visited a number of pubs recently will have seen large rounds being bought, which must be consumed by a specific time—which, in my part of the country, is normally 10.30 pm.

I was discussing restrictions as they apply to a number of locations. I am particularly concerned about sports clubs and other clubs with limited licences. Such clubs regularly have customers on only two or three nights a week. My constituency contains a number of rugby clubs—the Barton Hill and the Whitehall— and Cleve and Kingswood, among others, are just outside. The restrictions on those clubs are so heavy that often, when a rugby game finishes, they are not allowed to serve beer immediately; they must wait for half an hour or even an hour. The Bill will allow a degree of flexibility, which I consider appropriate.

One of my local newspapers, the Kingswood Observer, did a survey of attitudes towards drink. In my area, where non-conformism is very strong, a good many questions are raised. It would be reasonable to expect that such an area would be the most opposed to a change in the licensing laws, and it was therefore significant that more than two thirds of those asked were willing to see more flexibility. That is a reflection of the views about the need for change.

I have substantial experience of treatment of, and involvement with, alcoholics and others in need of treatment because of their addiction to alcohol. I do not speak with a personal or vested interest, but I have seen both sides of the issue. I believe that there is a need for change. However, I have seen the impact of excessive alcohol consumption on the individual. I do not consider that extending the licensing hours in the premises identified in the Bill will exacerbate the problem, because I believe that the problem of alcohol abuse is outside those areas.

1.47 pm
Mr. Ted Garrett (Wallsend)

As a supporter of this simple Bill, let me express my complete support for it. When I was a licensing magistrate, 30-odd years ago, I used to think of the rigmarole that would have to be undertaken before a modest extension of licensing hours—perhaps half an hour—could be obtained. The Bill will save numerous man hours for licensing magistrates, and we must remember that is does not seek to extend the total hours of consumption.

In the north-east— where you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have our constituencies—there seems to be no widespread opposition to the proposals. It is felt that they would particularly benefit the few industrial areas that have not been decimated. The variation in licensing hours would probably be for a certain period—say a year—and the licencee would then have to apply to vary them. That would suit the licensing magistrates, and it would certainly suit those in the areas where we have only one growth industry, namely, tourism: I can recommend the northernmost counties for tourism.

The variation would have some impact on jobs and on the violence mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I was beginning to become distressed at the thought that my hon. Friend lived in the most violent part of the United Kingdom, but I am sure that A is not that bad in Newham. No doubt the people of Newham, when they read his speech, will be somewhat alarmed, but I trust that he will allay their fears.

I want the Bill to get its Second Reading and to make progress. We have tried, but failed, to achieve such a measure before. Sooner or later, even if this Bill makes no progress, I am sure that this modest variation in licensing laws will be accepted.

1.50 pm
Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham)

As always when I speak on licensing matters, I declare my interest as a multiple licensee and the operator of five public houses in London. It is important to put that on the record.

The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) correctly made much of the importance of regulation. I have been a licensee for 15 years and been responsible for upholding the licensing laws in the most regulated place where one can to go to drink—the public house. There is little drunkeness in the pubs these days, and I am glad about that, as are my managers and staff.

It is tempting to repeat the arguments expressed in our debate on 27 February, when we discussed the excellent motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks). That motion sought to twin the two issues of licensing reform and the abuse of alcohol. We enjoyed the debate in which both halves of the equation were discussed without the pressure of a legislative proposal.

On the same day, a modest measure, initiated by Lord Montgommery, was introduced to allow people to enjoy a drink with a late lunch or early supper in a bona fide restaurant during the afternoon break. All the stages of that Bill were completed on that occasion. I believe that that measure has added to the anomalies that prevail in licensing.

The Licensing (Amendment) Bill seeks in a sensible way to iron out some of the anomalies between pubs, restaurants and hotels, and between the law as it applies to Scotland and as it applies to England and Wales. I think that the changes proposed are sensible.

I shall give a brief example of why I think that the changes are important. Two of the pubs of which I am licensee and tenant are within 600 yds of each other in the City of Westminster, close to the House. One does its business at lunchtime rather than in the evening and at the weekend. The other pub does its main trade in the evening and at the weekend. Both pubs are obliged to be open at precisely the same hours, even though that does not allow the most sensible use of the hours available. I do not want to extend the opening hours for those public houses, but I should like the flexibility to open at hours that suit the custom available.

The City of London is an extreme example. No one is around after about 7.30 pm, yet public houses in the City of London are obliged to open at the same hours as pubs in surburban residential areas. That makes no sense.

Not many licensees will choose to extend their opening hours significantly. There might be a tendency to look for an extra half hour on Friday or Saturday, when more people are out and about and would like to drink a little later. From Monday to Thursday there will be little call for longer opening hours.

There is an anomaly between the law for public houses and for off-licences. Off-licences are able to open from 9 am until the terminal hour for public houses without any mandatory break. Off-licences enjoy much longer hours and are much less controlled. The time is long since past when that anomaly should be set aside.

There was talk of the brewers exerting pressure on tenant licensees and managers to open for all the hours that will be available as a result of the Bill. I believe that the problem has been sorted out. I believe that the Brewers Society, the National Licensed Victuallers Association and the National Association of Licensed House Managers will be able to agree the matter in a sensible and proper manner.

The hon. Member for Newham, South was slightly disparaging about the employment that could be created as a result of my hon. Friend's Bill. Already some pubs are open during non-licensed hours for the sale of things other than alcohol. Some pubs in London open for breakfast. In the afternoons, some people might like the opportunity to go into a pub, not necessarily for an alcoholic drink, but to enjoy the ambience and the appointment of the public house and to have afternoon tea. If there is an extended use of those expensive facilities throughout the land, there will be a need to run a second shift of workers. It is that second shift that will result in the additional employment that has been suggested by the supporters of the Bill.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I support my hon. Friend's Bill.

1.57 pm
Mr. Gregor MacKenzie (Glasgow, Rutherglen)

I wish to intervene briefly in this debate, because the question of Scotland has arisen constantly in these deliberations. At the risk of sounding exceptionally pompous and conceited, may I say that it is a subject that I have been concerned about as a magistrate and as a member of the licensing court in the city of Glasgow for many years. Therefore, as the Scottish experience is of consequence to our deliberations today, I hope that the minute contribution that I shall make will assist hon. Members to make up their minds one way or another.

Before I came to the House I was a magistrate in the city of Glasgow and a member of the licensing court and a town councillor for 12 years. As a result of my experience, my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian), then Secretary of State for Scotland, and I decided to introduce a Bill on licensing. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to that Act.

If I have a quarrel with the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and his hon. Friends, it is that I would have preferred the measure to deal with the problem throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Precisely the same rules and regulations for England, Wales and Scotland should be introduced at the same time. There should be no messing about. This is one kingdom and we should have one set of rules and regulations.

When my right hon. Friend and I introduced our Bill, we did not ask the Whips to put any pressure on our colleagues. We had many free votes. As a representative of a working-class area since 1952, either on the town council or in Parliament, I can truthfully say that that Bill made a substantial improvement to the position in Scotland.

I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South about the rise in crimes that he foresees as a result of this measure being passed by the House. However, there are two types of crime—crime of violence and social crime. My hon. Friend referred to crimes of violence, but I can tell him that in Scotland there has not been much of an increase in such crime, if any. Moreover, there has been a massive decrease in social crime.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Eastwood and other Scottish colleagues will recall that when our licensing laws were tight with regard to opening hours, one would see men coming out of the large public works with their pay packets in their hands on a Friday night at half past five and, because of the limitation in drinking time, instead of going home, making straight for the public house.

Most of them—99.9 per cent.—were sensible. They would have a social drink with their friends and go home, but the hon. Member for Eastwood and I know that many were not sensible and would sit there and drink away their whole pay packet before 9 o'clock. It was a matter of, "Get as much drink into you as you can." I need not remind my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South that our drinking habits in Scotland are slightly different from those in England. Whereas in England beer is regarded as the most refreshing of all drinks, in Scotland the water of life is a harsher brand. So the half and a half pint syndrome can be expensive and sometimes explosive.

I can recall, as a magistrate, sitting in court on a Monday morning and having to deal with men who had gone home with hardly a penny of their pay packet left and sometimes beaten up their wives. That is as much a crime as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South.

Mr. Spearing

Perhaps my right hon. Friend can tell the House a little more of his experience. As he will know, I was concerned about the other end of the day. Can he tell the House what happened between 11 pm and 11.30 pm, before the change and subsequently, according to his experience in Glasgow and what he has heard? Would the same provisions apply to England, with the almost automatic extension of half an hour? My right hon. Friend emphasised the great differences in social habits and expectations between the two areas.

Mr. MacKenzie

I can only add that the increase in drinking hours, or, to put it more precisely, the spread over the number of hours allowed for drinking, has assisted in Scotland. It has been a positive change. Perhaps the hon. Member for Eastwood has the figures more readily to hand than I have, but so far as I can see, from my contact with chief constables and police forces, and from my experience as a magistrate, the change has considerably helped working people in Scotland. That is what I hope this bill is all about.

In a sense, licensing hours in Scotland were peculiar. If one was a working man who went to a pub, one could drink only until a certain time, but if the person was a wee bit wealthier, he could go into a hotel and sit there and drink until the Lord called him. That shows the social division.

The only point that I want to make as a magistrate and a former member of the licensing court, having watched what has happened in my constituency and others, is that there has been a considerable improvement in Scotland for working people and their families since my right hon. Friend the Member for Govan and I introduced the Bill some years back, and I commend the Bill before us to the House.

2.3 pm

Mr. Allan Stewart

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members

Yes.

Mr. Stewart

I am grateful to the House.

I should like to reply briefly to the debate. I thank the supporters of the Bill, on both sides of the House, who have supported it and spoken in favour of it in the two debates, I thank particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) and for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), who spoke with such personal authority as the Minister of State involved when the licensing changes in Scotland were made.

The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) may find it surprising that I agreed with the great bulk of what he said. I hope by the force of argument, to persuade him to join us on the Committee rather than force a Division today, although we are all aware that the hon.

Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has been waiting patiently to speak. We hope that he will have the opportunity at least to speak on his Bill.

Mr. Spearing

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and his kind invitation, but can he enlighten the House on one matter? There are two elements to his Bill. The first is essentially one of flexibility, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) referred. I concentrated on the second, which is of specific concern. It was about near or largely automatic extension. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those are two separate aspects, although they may be linked in the Bill, which should be examined later on their separate merits?

Mr. Stewart

The hon. Gentleman is right. We shall consider the individual aspects of the Bill in Committee.

I thank the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), who spoke forcefully on behalf of the north-east. I wish to emphasise that the Bill has all-party support. The hon. Member for Wallsend asked how many licensed premises would take up the variation orders. It is difficult to be absolute in making a forecast. I expect that some would and some would not. Some would perhaps take up the option in the summer in tourist areas and not at other times of the year. Managers are content with the Bill.

Questions have been asked about employment implications. The Scottish evidence is that one third of the pubs in Scotland employ one extra member of staff as a result of the flexibility that now prevails. The main concern of the hon. Member for Wallsend was the implication for crime. He spoke also about automaticity.

Practical experience has been gained in Scotland, and recently at a meeting in my constituency I spoke to some policemen who have real practical experience. During the meeting a constituent asked the local police what Governments have done in the past few years that have helped the police. Without prompting, the officer who replied referred to the Act that the right hon. Member for Rutherglen, with the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), brought on to the statue book. The officer said that it was one of the best things that Governments have done to help the police in recent years in Scotland.

I emphasise that there is no automaticity about the variation orders. I stress the importance of subsection (3), which states: licensing justices shall not make a variation order unless satisfied that it is desirable to do so having regard to the social circumstances … or to activities taking place in, the locality in which the premises are situated. The orders would apply for only one year and complaints could be made by the police, for example, to the magistrates court. They could seek to have the variation orders stopped if there were substantial objections.

We are not talking about a free-for-all—not that the hon. Member for Newham, South implied that we were— and we are not talking about universal extension. Instead, we are discussing a modest and controlled measure of increased flexibility.

The most important argument in favour of the Bill is one that has been advanced by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is directed to the importance of the role of a pub or club. I should emphasise that the club movement fully supports the Bill. It is important that controlled premises are provided for the consumption of alcohol. There is a serious problem of alcohol abuse, and part of it can be attributed to consumption of liquor that is purchased at off-licences. When this is done, the liquor can be consumed anywhere. Controlled premises have an important social role and are an important feature of this modest Bill. I hope that I have persuaded the hon. Member for Newham, South to become a member of the Committee that considers the Bill, if he so wishes.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).