§ Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERMy Lords, in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I should like to explain my own position with reference to the measure of which I have hitherto been the sponsor. Whether I am to remain sponsor or not I do not very clearly understand. Your Lordships may remember that when, two months ago, I moved the Second Reading of the Bill I expressed an earnest hope that it might be possible for His Majesty's Government to take over the Bill, be responsible for it, and practically make it their own. I am exceedingly glad to find that the Government have found it possible to do this, and, though there are only a few lines remaining of the actual wording of the Bill I introduced, the changes are changes of form rather than of substance, and, on the whole, the measure as redrafted is, in my judgment, improved and not injured. Speaking generally, I desire to say that I gratefully accept the changes which have been made in the Bill, and especially the additional clauses inserted by the Government, though there are one or two verbal points upon which criticism may be desirable. It may not unnaturally be asked, however, why, if these changes and additions are regarded, as they are, by myself and those responsible for the old Bill as improvements, why were they not inserted by us in the first instance? I think I made that point clear on the Second Reading stage. Our intention was to follow the advice given, and to produce a short Bill, and to have burdened it with the additional clauses now contained in the Government Amendments would have been, for a private Member, to ruin the prospects of the measure. Again, some of these Amendments and additions are of a kind which no one could well draft unless he had the information and the other 402 facilities possessed by the Home Office. As they now stand I welcome them, and I trust that the Bill in its amended form, roughly speaking, may become law during the present session.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill.—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
§ VISCOUNT CROSSMy Lords, I am sure the House ought to be grateful to the right rev. Prelate for having brought this question forward in the practical shape of a Bill that can be discussed. I am glad to hear that His Majesty's Government are disposed to take charge of the Bill, and to improve it as far as it needs improving. I would call attention, however, to one fact in connection with the Bill, because I think that a new practice is being introduced which is inconvenient to the House and to the country. If your Lordships will look at the Bill you will see that the proposal of the Government is to strike out the whole of the first clause except the words "where a person is convicted," and to insert a perfectly new clause. The whole of Clause 2, with the exception of the words "where the husband of a married woman is an habitual drunkard," are to be deleted, and a totally new clause introduced. So it is with the third and fourth clauses. By their Amendments, the Government have left only about five lines of the original Bill intact. I think your Lordships will see the inconvenience of this practice. The original Bill has been before the country, has been discussed at quarter sessions and elsewhere, and now it is proposed in Committee practically to frame a new measure. It would be very much better if the Government had introduced a Bill of their own, and had not cut out the whole of the right rev. Prelate's Bill and substituted something entirely different. It would be most inconvenient if this practice became general.
THE EARL OF MAYOMy Lords, I have hesitated, under the circumstances, to put down any Amendment to this Bill, but I hope that His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of applying the Bill to Ireland. I think it would be of great benefit there.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDONI should like to support from this side of the House the suggestion of the noble Earl. In my judgment, there is no reason why the Bill should not be applied to Ireland. The law ought to be the same in both countries, and I hope His Majesty's Government will consider the suggestion.
§ LORD BELPERMy Lords, in reply to the remarks of the right rev. Prelate and my noble friend Lord Cross, I will explain the position of the Government in regard to this Bill. It will be in the recollection of your Lordships that this subject was referred to in the King's Speech, and on behalf of the Home Secretary I have to say that in accordance with that announcement a Bill was prepared which my right hon. friend was anxious to introduce in the other House. When the Bishop of Winchester introduced his two Bills I then explained on behalf of the Government that the Government would accept the Bills with certain modifications, and that the Bills would be made not only to cover the ground which was covered by the right rev. Prelate's Bill, but in many respects would go considerably further. I also stated that, as far as procedure permitted, the Government were very anxious to introduce a Bill in the other House. Since that time the Home Secretary has not been able to get an opportunity of introducing the Bill, and I now acknowledge the courtesy shown by the right rev. Prelate in postponing the consideration of his Bill, so as to allow the proposals of the Government to be laid before Parliament as well as his own. But the state of public business not permitting the Government to introduce their own measure, it was decided, after full consideration, that it would be the most desirable and convenient course to graft the recommendations of the Government Bill on the right rev. Prelate's Bill applying to the same subject. It is quite true that the Amendments which I shall have to move practically cut out a great proportion of the right rev. Prelate's measure.
§ VISCOUNT CROSSThey cut out the whole of it.
§ LORD BELPERBut they do not affect the principle of the Bill. It would 404 have been quite possible to move Amendments which would have introduced the proposals of the Government without cutting out so much of the Bill as is now proposed; but, after consideration, the Home Secretary decided that it would be better to make the Bill a complete one, and to draft it in such a way as to carry out fully his proposals. The Amendments do not in any way touch the principle of the Bill. They alter the procedure in some respects and make it more complete; but, in addition, the Government propose clauses to which they attach very great importance, and which were not contained in the right rev. Prelate's Bill. If your Lordships adopt the Amendments which I have to make, it is the intention of the Government to take up the Bill in the other House as a Government measure and press it forward as their own. It does not he in my province to express any opinion as to whether or not it would have been better that the Bill should have been, reintroduced as a fresh Bill. All I can say is, that I shall be most happy to give every opportunity for Amendments to be moved to the Bill at a subsequent stage. I hope the House will agree that the course which the Government have pursued has at all events been in the true interests of the passing of the measure, and that the chances of this Bill will be more favourable in another place than would be the case if the Government had waited till a later period in the session to introduce a Bill of their own.
§ EARL SPENCERMy Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount as to the inconvenience of the course followed by His Majesty's Government in their alterations of the Bill, which is most unusual, very remarkable, and which should not be accepted as a precedent. In the gracious Speech from the Throne His Majesty, on the recommendation of His Ministers, no doubt, stated that a Bill on this subject was to be introduced by his Government, but instead of introducing that Bill His Majesty's Government have entirely remodelled—not, perhaps, in principle, but in detail—the Bill of the right rev. Prelate. How will this Bill be described? Will it be called the right rev. Prelate's Bill or the Bill of the Government? I wish to know why the noble Marquess should not be content 405 with his own lay garments instead of assuming the lawn sleeves of the Episcopal Bench. The noble Lord who represents the Home Office said the Home Secretary would not have time to introduce the measure in another place.
§ LORD BELPERI said he had not yet had the opportunity.
§ EARL SPENCERIt may be difficult for the Government to introduce a Bill in the other House; but that difficulty does not exist here. In the Speech from the Throne it is never stated in which House the Bill is to be introduced. I think it would have been much more dignified and more in accordance with precedent if the Government had introduced a Bill of their own instead of merely altering the Bill of the Bishop of Winchester.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY)The view of the noble Earl is somewhat punctilious. I have some difficulty in arguing with him, because I do not know precisely of what he complains. The point of difference seems to be very insignificant; and if the noble Earl wishes for an apology I will give him a bushel of them. I have no particular prejudice in favour of the course which has been pursued, though under the circumstances it seemed the more convenient one. I will acknowledge that I rather wished to push into the foreground the fact that, by a strange chance, I was able to find myself in agreement with the right rev. Prelate. It was rather a satisfaction to know that for once we could, if I may use a vulgar phrase, pull in the same boat. But if the noble Earl wishes for any reparation, I shall be very glad to give him it; and perhaps he would like some entry made upon the journals of this House to point out to future generations that this course which we have adopted is not to be taken as a precedent. I do not think it will have much effect, either upon the probability of this measure taking its place on the Statute-book or upon the destinies of His Majesty's subjects, if it is placed there. Beyond this expression of opinion I find no material for continuing the discussion with the noble Earl.
§ On Question agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
§ Clause 1:—
§ LORD BELPERThe main difference between the clause as proposed in the Bill and the words of the Amendment is that the Bill confines the power of making an order of detention to courts of summary jurisdiction, while the Amendment follows the scheme of the Inebriates Act of 1898, and would enable any court before whom the offender is tried to make an order and send the notice. The clause at present contains a list of offences connected with drunkenness, on conviction of which, after a specified number of times, an order may be made declaring the offender to be an habitual drunkard. The amended clause confines the order to cases in which the court is of opinion that an order of detention could be made under Section 1 or 2 of the Inebriates Act, 1898. It has been thought much more convenient to adhere, in a new matter of this sort to the limits of that Act, and not to make a new definition of the term "habitual drunkard." The Bill proposed that the court should determine within what area the offender should not be served by licence-holders. The Amendment does not specify any area, but leaves the serving of notices to licence-holders to the discretion of the police. The Bill provided for the serving of notices to holders of both on and off licences; but the amended clause will be confined to on-licences only. The Bill proposed a penalty for the publican who served an habitual drunkard; and the amended clause will extend the penalty also to the habitual drunkard who asks to be served. But, practically, the clause in the Bill and the Amendment of the Government proceed on the same lines.
§
Amendment moved—
In Clause 1, page 1, line 5, to leave out from 'convicted,' to the end of the clause, and to insert' of any offence under circumstances in which the court is of opinion that an order of detention could be made under Section 1 or Section 2 of the Inebriates Act, 1898, then, whether an order of detention is made or not, the court shall order that notice of the conviction, with such particulars as may be prescribed by a Secretary of State, be sent to the police authority (within the meaning of the
407
Police Act, 1890) for the police area in which the court is situate.
(2) Where a court in pursuance of this Act orders notice of a conviction to be sent to a police authority, the court shall inform the convicted person that the notice is to be so sent; and—
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERThere is no difference between the views of the noble Lord and my own as to the substance of the clause, but there are one or two verbal Amendments which I should like to see made. I imagine that it would be better that verbal questions should be reserved for the Standing Committee, and I propose to take that course.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 2:—
§ LORD BELPERThe object of this clause is to make habitual drunkenness a ground on which a separation order may be granted. The clause as it at present stands provides that where the husband of a married woman is an habitual drunkard within the meaning of the Act, the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, shall apply in like manner as if he had been guilty of persistent cruelty to her. While the clause in the Bill only gives protection to the wife, the Amendment will extend the protection to the husband.
§
Amendment moved—
In Clause 2, page 2, line 27, to leave out from 'drunkard' to the end of the clause, and to insert 'as defined by Section three of
408
the Habitual Drunkards Act, 1879, the married woman shall be entitled to apply for an order under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, and that Act shall apply accordingly.
(2) Where the wife of a married man is am habitual drunkard as defined by Section three of the Habitual Drunkards Acts, 1879, the married man shall be entitled to apply to a court of summary jurisdiction for an order under this sub-section, and on any such application the court may make one or more orders containing all or any of the following particulars:—
Subject to the foregoing provisions, the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, shall apply to an application and order under this sub-section in like manner as it applies to an application and order under that Act, except that for references to a married woman and her husband shall be substituted references to a married man and his wife.'"—(Lord Belper).
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERThe difference between the clause and the Amendment is very large; but the; promoters of the Bill not only accept, but most cordially welcome, the proposal to give protection to a husband who has the misfortune to have a wife who is an habitual drunkard. The addition is eminently right, and I have had letters from every part of the country asking for it. The proposal was not included in the Bill simply because it was beyond my wit or power, with the limited materials at my command, to devise phraseology which would carry out such an amendment of the law. I am exceedingly glad the clause has been extended by His Majesty's Government.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
409§ Clause 3:—
§ LORD BELPERThis clause authorises the arrest of any person found drunk while having the charge of a child under the age of six years. By the Amendment the age is extended to seven years, and the word "apparently" is introduced, because there would be no means of ascertaining at the time of arrest whether the child was under the age of seven or not. Of course, before any punishment was inflicted the age would have to be proved. It is thought desirable to give this power of arrest, even though it may turn out that the child was not under the age of seven.
§
Amendment moved—
In Clause 3, page 2, line 33, to leave out after 'child' to the end of the clause, and to insert 'apparently under the age of seven years, he may be apprehended, and shall, if the child is under that age, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any period not exceeding one month. (2) If the child appears to the court to be under the age of seven, the child shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be under that age unless the contrary is proved. (3) The offence under this section shall be included in the list of offences in the First Schedule to the Inebriates Act, 1898.'"—(Lord Belper.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNIf the Amendment is adopted the clause will read: If any person is found drunk in any highway or other public place while having the charge of a child apparently under the age of seven years "he" may be apprehended. Is it intended to limit this penalty to males? The clause as it now stands refers to both sexes. I should like to ask a further question—namely, What will become of the child while the offender in undergoing imprisonment?
§ LORD BELPERI understand that the terms of the clause will include females in charge of children as well as males.
§ LORD BELPERUnder the General Interpretation Act "he" includes "she." I am not prepared to answer the noble Earl's second question, but I suppose 410 provision will be made for the child in the ordinary way.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
§ LORD BELPERThe object of the new clause standing in my name is to give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission, who suggested that there should be power of arrest in the case of a person who is merely drunk in a public place, and not, as now, only in the case of a person who is drunk and disorderly. Under the Act of 1872 it is an offence for a person to be drunk in a public place, but he can only be prose-cut by means of a summons. This clause; will give power of arrest.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert as a new clause after Clause 3, If a person is found drunk in any highway or other public place, whether a building or not, or on any licensed premises, and appears to be incapable of taking care of himself, he may be apprehended and proceedings may be taken against him for the offence."—Lord Belper.)
§ On Question, new clause agreed to.
§ LORD BELPERThere has been some question as to whether persons convicted of drunkenness can be required to give security for good behaviour. Sir John Bridge, when chief magistrate of the metropolis, occasionally used this power with very great advantage, but other magistrates have taken a different view and have not considered that the power, existed. This clause has been introduced to make that matter clear.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert as a new clause, 'Where a person is convicted of any offence mentioned in the list of offences contained in the First Schedule to the Inebriates Act, 1898, as amended by this Act, the court may, either in addition to or in substitution for any other penalty, order the offender to enter into a recognisance and find sureties to be of good behaviour."—(Lord Belper.)
§ On Question, new clause agreed to.
§ LORD BELPERThe next Amendment carries out the recommendation of both parties on the Royal Commission. Its object is to shift, to a certain extent, 411 the onus of proof. At present the prosecution has to show that the licensed person did not take all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness on the premises; but the new clause will compel the licensed person to show that he took all reasonable steps.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert as a new clause, 'Where a licensed person is charged with permitting drunkenness on his premises, and it is proved that any person was drunk on his premises, it shall lie on the licensed person to prove that he and the persons employed by him took all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness on the premises.'"—(Lord Belper.)
§ LORD HENEAGEI should like to ask the noble Lord what he means by the words "took all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness on the premises." Does he mean that the licensed person must prove that he did not serve the man with liquor after he believed him to be drunk, or that he did his best to have him removed? The clause might work very unjustly. There are a number of small public-houses and beer houses in the country in the hands of labourers who are at work all day. How is the wife, in such a case, to prove that she took all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness on her premises if the police look in and find a man drunk there?
§ LORD BELPERI think it would be "very indiscreet on my part to attempt to define the word "reasonable" in all cases. The very object of using the word is that the justices before whom the case is brought may form their own opinion as to whether the steps taken "were reasonable or not.
§ On Question, new clause agreed to.
§ Clause 4:—
§ LORD BELPERIt is the universal opinion that the existing system of endorsing convictions on licences has not proved successful, and my Amendment to Clause 4, by doing away with that system, gives effect to a recommendation of both parties on the Royal Commission. The Amendment proposes that a register shall be kept of all convictions, which shall always be before the magistrates when they have to come to a decision. Where 412 a licensed person is convicted before any court of any offence committed by him as such, it will be the duty of the clerk of the licensing justices to enter notice of every such conviction on the register, and on any application for the grant, renewal, or transfer of a licence, the licensing justices are to have regard to any entries in the register of convictions relating either to the person by whom, or to the premises in respect of which, the licence is to be held. There is a further proviso that if the number of registered convictions exceeds five within a period of five years, the licensing justices shall, if they grant the licence, record their reasons for so doing, and the police authority are given power to oppose the confirmation of the licence. I think it will be agreed that this is likely to work more fairly than the present system.
§
Amendment moved—
In Clause 4, page 2, line 38, to leave out from 'convicted' to the end of the clause, and to insert 'before any court of any offence committed by him as such, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the licensing justices to enter notice of every such conviction in the register of licences kept by him, and if the clerk of the court is not the clerk of the licensing justices, he shall forthwith send notice of the conviction to the clerk of the licensing justices.
(2) On any application for the grant, renewal, or transfer of a licence the licensing justices shall have regard to any entries in the register of convictions relating either to the person by whom, or to the premises in respect of which, the licence is to be held.
(3) If the number of registered convictions relating to the person or to the premises, or either of them, exceeds five within a period of five years immediately preceding the licensing sessions, the licensing justices shall, if they grant, renew, or transfer the licence, record in writing on the register their reasons for so doing, and the police authority (within the meaning of the Police Act, 1890) for the police area in which the licensing sessions are held, may, in the case of a new licence, oppose the confirmation of the licence, and, in the case of renewal or transfer, appeal against the decision of the licensing justices.
(4) It shall not be necessary to record any conviction on a licence.'"—(Lord Belper.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERI think Sub-section 3 of the proposed new clause requires careful consideration. As it stands, it would seem to imply that a new licence might be given to a man who had been convicted four times, or a licence renewed to a public-house which had offended in a similar manner. I venture to think that no existing 413 bench of magistrates, without this clause, would think of granting or renewing a licence under those circumstances. But by this Amendment it would seem that five previous convictions are to be regarded as necessary in order to make it undesirable for the magistrates to grant the licence. Speaking of the clause as a whole, I welcome it with all my heart. One very important provision in the original clause, to which the noble Lord has not referred, is cut out by the Amendment—namely, the section which provides that—
When the court has power under this Act to impose a fine of twenty pounds on a licensed person, the court may, in its discretion, instead of imposing a fine, suspend the licence for any period not exceeding three months.I am quite aware that that would be a very drastic measure, but the majority as well as the minority of the Royal Commission distinctly recommended that the power of suspending licences should be given.
§ EARL STANHOPEI hope that my noble friend will agree to the omission of Sub-section 3, which does not improve the existing law, and is liable to misinterpretation. It would imply that the magistrates could not refuse the licence unless there had been five convictions.
§ LORD HENEAGEI entirely agree with what has been said by the noble Earl who has just sat down. There are several objections to the sub-section. If a publican committed an offence once a year for four years, and then missed a year, he would escape scot-free, because he would not have been convicted five times in five years. The number of five offences is, I think, too many, and if the clause is to remain in the Bill, I shall move to substitute three. It is a very inconvenient sub-section, and I think the Government would do well to drop it.
§ LORD BELPERThe objections of the noble Lord opposite are based upon a misconception of the meaning of the clause. The object of the clause is to do away with the endorsement of licences, and to provide that there shall be a record of the conviction in the register of licences. The matter will be considered, as at present, on each occasion, but if the magistrates do grant the licence after 414 five offences they are to explain their reasons for so doing, and there is to be an appeal against their decision. I will consider the suggestion of my noble friend Earl Stanhope as to the omission of the sub-section at a later stage of the Bill, but for the present I must ask your Lordships to pass the clause in its existing form.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI do not know whether it is intended to do away with the endorsement of licences altogether.
§ LORD BELPERThe clause says so.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNIf the noble Lord will look at the clause he will see that it provides that, where a man is convicted of an offence, it shall be the duty of the clerk to enter notice of the conviction in the register; but, with regard to the endorsement of the licence, all the clause says is that "It shall not be necessary to record any conviction on a licence." I do not gather that the endorsement of licences is thereby altogether abolished. I think it would be better to omit Sub-section 3 now, and bring up a new provision at a later stage. Under this sub-section five convictions would be necessary before the licensing justices could consider the matter.
§ LORD BELPERNot at all. In every case they consider the matter.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNAccording to my reading of Sub-section 3, if would require five offences in the five years immediately preceding the licensing sessions in order to do away with the licence.
§ LORD BELPERNot at all.
§ LORD BELPERI am perfectly willing to consider the matter between this and the next stage of the Bill, but I cannot agree to cut out the sub-section now. With regard to the omission of the section giving power to s spend licences, I have to inform the right rev. 415 Prelate that, in the opinion of the Government, the original proposal was impracticable.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 5 amended, and agreed to.
§ LORD BELPERThe Bill is not extended to Scotland and Ireland because, as the licensing laws in those countries differ in many respects from those of England, it is thought more expedient that they should be dealt with separately.
§ Moved, "That the Bill, as amended' be reported to the House."—(Lord Belper.)
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHI should like to ask whether the Government will how take charge of the measure. As introduced by the Bishop of Winchester the Bill consisted of four operative clauses and sixty-eight lines. Of those sixty-eight but four and a half remain, and they are merely the preambles of the four clauses. In these circumstances I wish to know whether the Government will accept it as a Government Bill in this House, and give it the advantages of a Government Bill in the other House.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI do not know what precisely are the advantages that would accrue to the Bill if it was called a Government Bill in this House. I quite agree, however, that there are distinct advantages to be gained by adopting that course in the House of Commons, and it is the intention, if the Bill is passed by your Lordships, that it shall be treated in the other House as a Government Bill.
§ On Question, motion agreed to.
§ Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. [No. 79.]