HL Deb 04 August 1903 vol 126 cc1405-21

On the Order being read for the House going into Committee on this Bill,

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH)

said: My Lords, in moving that the House go into Committee on this Bill, I will take the opportunity of answering a Question which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camperdown) put to me on the Second Reading, in regard to the possibility of allowing burghs between the limits of 4,000 and 7,000 population to be represented upon the Appeal Courts. I have again very carefully considered this matter, which was discussed at great length, and, I think, very carefully threshed out in another place. I am entirely unable to agree to the proposal that these burghs should be directly represented upon the Appeal Courts. The reason for making the concession in the case of Royal and Parliamentary burghs between the limits of 4,000 and 7,000, and allowing them to maintain their licensing authority is this, that they have already, so to speak, a sort of vested interest in that authority, and it seemed hard to deprive an urban community of between 4,000 and 7,000 of a privilege which they greatly valued. As the Bill was first introduced the limit was 7,000, but, after full discussion, we agreed in another place to lower the limit to 4,000 in the case of the Royal burghs which already enjoyed licensing powers. At the present time they have no representation and no power at all in the Appeal Court, so that the Bill takes nothing from them There is nothing of the nature of a vested interest even in the most narrow sense of the term, and to make the change proposed would enormously complicate the machinery of the Bill, and would, I think, destroy to a large extent the symmetry of the Appeal Court as at present constituted. I have had an interview to-day with the representatives of the Convention of Royal Burghs and I am willing to make a concession at a subsequent stage. If noble Lords will look at Section 5, Sub-section 1, a proviso will be found at the end which prevents representatives of these Royal burghs from voting both for the constitution of the county licensing Court and of the Appeal Court. As they have licensing Courts of their own it is obviously right that they should be debarred from exercising any authority in regard to the county licensing Court; but at a subsequent stage I will put down an Amendment which will allow the County Council representatives to take part in the selection of the Appeal Court. By that arrangement I hope it will not be improbable that at times their representatives will be actually sent to the Appeal Court, so that these burghs will have under that Amendment a fair chance of being represented by someone who is actually sent by the constituent body to the County Council.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I am obliged to the noble Lord for having considered the matter. Probably the suggestion he has just thrown out is as far as he can go. As I stated on the Second Reading, I do not myself propose so move in the matter; but it seemed ttrange that a body which was an independent licensing authority should have no representation, direct or indirect, upon the Appeal Court. If the matter had been inquired into from the very beginning I should have advised my noble friend not to give the concession contained in the Bill with regard to these small licensing bodies. I do not myself see the very great difference between a Royal burgh with a population of 4,000 and a police burgh; and, as the noble Lord knows, the police burghs have complained most bitterly, and have pointed out that they in turn ought to be licensing authorities. With that I do not at all agree, and I should not have disagreed with my noble friend if he had struck the others out also; but as they are licensing authorities I am glad he is going to give them some indirect representation on the Appeal Court.

House in Committee (according to order).

Clause 1.

THE EARL of ABERDEEN

explained that the object of his first Amendment was to substitute the word "Authorities" for "Courts" in Clause 1, which enacted that— For the purpose of granting certificates under this Act, there shall annually be held throughout Scotland, in lieu of the general half-yearly meetings held under the existing Acts, two general half-yearly meetings of the licensing Courts to be constituted as hereinafter provided. His Amendment might appear, at first sight, to be a merely verbal Amendment, but it was more than that. He thought that possibly the expression "Court" substituted for the well-recognised and well-understood designation "licensing authority" might lead to misapprehension. A Court in the strict sense of the word could only receive evidence in the legal acceptation of the term, but the practice—and he thought it was a very poor practice—in deciding upon licences was for those who constituted the body to be influenced, not only by the actual evidence placed before them, but by their own personal knowledge of the district and its requirements. Misgiving had been expressed that in some way the new term "Court" might indirectly hamper the full discretion of those who had to adjudicate upon these matters.

Amendment moved:— In page 1, line 10, to leave out the word 'Courts' and to insert the word 'authorities.'"—(The Earl of Aberdeen.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I sincerely hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment. I do not agree with him that "authority" is the more generally accepted term. It may be that at the present time "authority" is, strictly speaking, the legal term, but the word "Court" is used invariably in describing the proceedings in newspaper reports and, certainly, in all volumes of judicial statistics, and in all other documents dealing with the proceedings of these bodies. I think there is a certain advantage in giving dignity to the proceedings of these bodies. Though I quite agree that they are not bound by the law of evidence in the same strict way that purely judicial Courts are, I do think there is some advantage in giving them the legal title, which they have practically always borne. It would snake a considerable change in the Bill if I were to accept this Amendment. I really do not think there is much substance in the objection, and I hope it will not be pressed.

THE EARL OF ABERDEEN

said he was glad to hear the statement of the noble Lord that there was no idea of in any way restricting the freedom of the licensing justices. After what the noble Lord bad said, he did not feel disposed to press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2.

THE EARL OF ABERDEEN

moved an Amendment to place all burghs with a population of 4.000 on the same footing. Clause 2 provided that— For each burgh, being a county of a city, and for each Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh containing a population of or exceeding seven thousand, and for each burgh containing a population under seven thousand but of or exceeding four thousand the magistrates of which have power to grant certificates under the existing Acts, there shall be a separate licensing Court, consisting of the magistrates of such burgh for the time being. He moved to delete the words "containing a population of or exceeding seven thousand, but of or exceeding four thousand." Police burghs were just as much entitled to consideration in these matters as Royal burghs. The object of his Amendment was to place all burghs with a population over 4,000 on the same footing in the matter of licensing. In Clause 2 there was at present a distinction. He did not think there could be any danger in his Amendment, because it was subject to the proviso that only burghs, wherein the magistrates had already power to grant licences under existing Acts, should have the power proposed by the Amendment. In fact, it was simply a further recognition of the powers they already possessed. Burghs with populations of over 4,000, even though not Royal burghs, should be on the same footing. He thought this would certainly meet a feeling which existed in Scotland. He was the more disposed to advocate this change because it partook of the spirit, at least, of local option, because in most cases the magistrates referred to would be elected by the people of the district, and in that way the latter would have a voice in this matter.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 13, to leave out from the word 'burgh' to the word 'the' in line 15."— (The Earl of Aberdeen.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The Amendment which the noble Earl has placed on the Paper would go a great deal further than he suggests, because it would not limit the licensing authorities or Courts to police burghs above 4,000 in population. It would give a Court to every Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh, and that, of course, is an Amendment which could not be accepted at this stage; and I am afraid I could not meet the noble Lord even if he proposed to limit it to police burghs above 4,000. The only reason in the case of Royal burghs for cutting down the limit to 4,000 was that they had exercised that authority for a considerable number of years, and it would be hard to take it away from them. If the Amendment were agreed to it would cause more discontent than if the Bill were left in its present form.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to,

Clause 5.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said his Amendment to this clause was of a purely drafting character, its object being to get rid of the word "retiral." The word might have appeared in other Acts of Parliament, but he hoped it had not; but, if it had, that was no reason why they should perpetuate so objectionable a word. He had seen the word used in Scottish newspapers occasionally, but he hoped the House would not elevate it to the dignity of being placed in an Act of Parliament. He suggested the substitution of the word "retirement "

Amendment moved— In page 4, lines 12 and 23, to leave out the word 'retiral' and to insert the word 'retirement.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

There is no doubt that the word "retiral" does appear in several Scottish Acts. I believe it to be good Scotch for retirement, in spite of what the noble Earl says; but "retirement," perhaps, tells its own tale to the average reader of an Act of Parliament better than the word "retiral," and if the noble Earl presses his Amendment I have no objection to accepting it.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I certainly do press it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I propose to insert an Amendment in this clause for the purpose of allowing the urban community known as Anstruther Easter and Anstruther Wester, along with Kilrenny and Pittenweem to retain their licensing authority. The three burghs first mentioned are absolutely contiguous. They form one urban community. Their interests are the same, the population is of the same character, and there is no division between them by a county district. There is a short distance between them and Pittenweem, but there, again, the population is of an entirely similar character. I think it would be a wise concession to the feeling of this community to allow them to retain their licensing Court.

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 28, after Sub-section (1.) (c.) to insert as a new sub-section the words: (d.) 'The Royal burghs of Kilrenny, Pittenweem, Anstruther Easter and Anstruther Wester shall be deemed to form one Royal burgh, and the magistrates of the said burghs shall be deemed to be the magistrates of the burgh so formed, and the meetings of the licensing Court for such burgh shall, except as otherwise appointed by the Court, be held in the Royal burgh of Anstruther Easter, and the town clerk of the Royal burgh of Anstruther Easter shall be clerk to the licensing Court; and'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

This is really little more than a formal Amendment. Its object is to enable cases to be dealt with at the October Court as well as at the April Court.

Amendment moved— In page 11, line 26, to leave out the words 'next ensuing' and to insert the words 'or half-year next ensuring as the case may be.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 16 agreed to.

Clause 17

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

This is an Amendment asked for by the officers of Inland Revenue, and it is obviously a proper one.

Amendment moved— In page 14, line 23, to leave out the words 'to any party' and to insert the words 'to any officer of Inland Revenue without payment, and to any other person.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 30 agreed to.

Clause 31.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I propose at the beginning of this clause to insert a new sub-section. At present a good deal of abuse has occurred owing to the power to transfer at any period of the year simply by a certificate of two justices. It is now proposed that transfers, except in the event of death and bankruptcy and other contingencies, shall only take place at the half-yearly Court. As the Bill at present stands, it may be thought that they can only take place annually. The effect of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that such transfers may take place in October as well as in April.

Amendment moved— In page 20, line 17, at beginning of clause, to insert as a new sub-section the words (1) 'A licensing Court may at any October half-yearly meeting grant to a new tenant or occupant a transfer of any certificate then subsisting for any house or premises as aforesaid.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 33 to 40 agreed to

Clause 41.

LORD KINNAIRD

proposed to add a sub-section to Clause 41, with a view to giving the licensing authorities power to make by-laws for regulating or preventing the employment of barmaids. The Glasgow magistrates some time ago made a condition in granting certain licences that young women should not be employed. Subsequently some licence-holders thought the magistrates had exceeded their powers, and eventually it was decided that the publicans were right, and that the magistrates had gone beyond the powers vested in them. He thought that the licensing authority should have the power of suggesting to licence-holders that it might not be desirable that women should be employed by them. The system has been tried largely in the United States, and, so far as their case was analogous to ours, there had not been any objection raised to it by those interested in the employment of women. There was not a sufficient number employed in licensed premises to make the proposal a hardship, because there were very many other occupations for young women to which the objection did not hold.

Amendment moved— In page 24, line 31, after the word 'necessary' to insert as a new paragraph the words: (g.) 'For regulating or preventing the employment of barmaids.'"—(Load Kinnaird.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I do not know that I should differ from the noble Earl that in certain circumstances and in certain environment the employment of young women on licensed premises may be undesirable, but having regard to the habits and customs which exist among us, to legislate in the manner suggested would be an unwarrantable interference with persons who manage a legitimate business in a legitimate way.

It is perfectly true that the magistrates of Glasgow endeavoured to make a regulation on the subject under the existing law, but, as a matter of fact, it was found to be illegal for them to do so. Before the Court of Appeal gave their decision on the point the magistrates of Glasgow in their effort to regulate this matter had landed themselves in an utterly impossible and illogical position There are many restaurants in Glasgow where there can be no possible objection to women being employed. In some of these customers help themselves and pay at the door, and the establishments are of a perfectly respectable character, and eminently suited for the employment of women. There is hardly a restaurant, I should think, in which women are not employed as waitresses. I believe the Glasgow magistrates found themselves in this position ultimately, that they, managed to regulate the employment of women so far as to prevent their employment behind the bars, where they were really kept to themselves, but they did not manage to do it in those very places where the girls went about among the customers. When one considers the difficulties of the situation and the illogical position, there is nothing to be said for this proposal. As the proposal stands, it would not do. There was a Question asked in another place whether a widow could be a barmaid, and I should like the noble Lord to address his mind to that question. The noble Lord said it was undesirable for young women to be so employed. At what age would he regard such employment as proper? There are all sorts of questions of this kind, and I think the unfortunate Secretary of State for Scotland, who would have to sanction by-laws for the purpose under this Amendment, would find himself in an undesirable situation. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed, on the grounds I have stated.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

asked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill if he would explain Sub-section (C.), of Clause 41, which provided that a licensing Court might make by-laws— For requiring all wines and spirits kept by a grocer within licensed premises to be sold in corked or stoppered bottles, vessels, jars, or casks, but the by-law shall not apply to licensed premises where no groceries are kept or sold, and where a bona fide wholesale business in excisable liquors is carried on. The first half of the sub-section he understood perfectly, and, so far as he was able to judge, it seemed all right; but what was the meaning of the provision that the by-law should not apply to licensed premises where no groceries were kept or sold? He presumed that these premises were premises separated from the other by partitions, or in some other way, where liquors only were sold. This question of grocers selling liquors was a very debatable one. If grocery was not their business, and if the sale of excisable liquors was, it was very desirable that they should be under the same regulations as ordinary publicans. They had always been told that the object of giving grocers these licences was to enable them to sell liquor in corked or stoppered bottles, or in certain other measures only, and that it was for that purpose the grocers' licences were chiefly valuable. He would like an explanation from the noble Lord of this sub-section.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I can easily give the explanation for which the noble Earl asks. In the first place, nothing under this by-law would apply to publicans; it would be confined entirely to those who worked under grocers' licences. A good deal of complaint has been made, and I think justly made, in the Majority and Minority Reports of the Licensing Commission and in the Report of the Grocers' Licences Commission, of abuses in connection with the working of these certificates. When grocers were given certificates to deal in excisable liquors, it was never intended that they should sell what is called loose spirits in an open jug; but the custom of doing so has grown up, and it was found not capable of being stopped under the existing law. This Bill will stop it. The reason for the exemption is this, that there are two classes of places which work under grocers' licences, but which are in no sense grocers' shops. Those wholesale places in which blending is carried on, often by the same person who may have the grocers shop, but in premises separated from those in which he carries on his grocery business, are worked under grocers' licences, and very often wine merchants work to a large extent under one form of grocers' licence. I think that if there is no business of the nature of a grocer carried on in the same premises as the blending of spirits or the sale of spirits, there seems no reason for putting the holder of that certificate under the same restrictions under the by-law.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said he quite understood the noble Lord's point with regard to blending. But the grocer, under this sub-section, would be able, in the separate premises, to sell liquor in small quantities, which was the thing the noble Lord said a moment before was so objectionable. He must say he thought publicans had good reason to complain with regard to grocers' licences, and he thought an arrangement of the sort proposed in the clause would enable grocers to trench even more than at present on the trade of the licensed victuallers.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I think not. Wherever a grocer's business is carried on corked or stoppered bottles will be required. There can be no open sale of wines and spirits. We have not, however, included beer, because we thought it only right that a jug of beer might be fetched from grocers' shops.

Clause 41 agreed to.

Clauses 42 to 47 agreed to.

Clause 48.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

This is an Amendment which has been suggested by the Inland Revenue, and the provision more properly applies to the Excise Act than to this Act. The same provision is in the Inland Revenue Acts, and there is no reason for repeating it here.

Amendment moved— In page 28, line 24, to leave out from the words 'in calculating' to the word 'disregarded' in line 25.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 49 to 54 agreed to.

Clause 55.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

This clause is inserted to allow a dealer in spirituous liquors to give out small quantities on a medical certificate, or on a certificate by the procurator fiscal, if wanted for any medical purpose. The clause as it stands would only deal with hours on ordinary It days that public-houses are closed. It is proposed by the Amendment to allow the same process to be gone through on Sundays, public holidays, and other days when public-houses are closed.

Amendment moved— In page 30, line 32, to leave out the words 'at any prohibited hour of any day' and to insert the words 'at any time when such giving out and supply would be otherwise illegal.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The next Amendment makes sure that the licensing Court knows what is going on under this clause.

Amendment moved— In page 30, line 39, at end of clause to insert the words 'the procurator fiscal shall transmit a list of such orders received by him, showing the names and descriptions of all persons signing the same during the current half-year, to the clerk of the licensing Court seven days before the day fixed for each half-yearly meeting of Kiel Court.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question., Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 56 to 70 agreed to.

Clause 71.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

This clause provides that— Where a person is convicted of any offence mentioned in the First Schedule to the Inebriates Act, 1898, the Court may, either in addition to or in substitution for any other penalty, order the offender to find caution for good behaviour for any period not exceeding six months, and under a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds. The object of my Amendment is to add, at the end of this section, the words contained in the Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 38, line 28, at end, to insert the words 'and in default of such caution being found to be imprisoned for a period not exceeding thirty days.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 72 agreed to.

Clause 73.

EARL RUSSELL

said it would be in the recollection of the House that when the Motor-Cars Bill was before their Lordships he moved an Amendment which would have had the effect of making other vehicles subject to the same provisions as applied to motorcars under that Bill. On that occasion the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, took objection on the ground that as the Bill was limited to motor-cars, it would not be well to extend it to other vehicles on the highway. He (Earl Russell) recognised the force of that objection, and did not press his Amendment. But their Lordships would be very much surprised to find that in Clause 73 of this Bill, which was for the object of consolidating and amending Licensing Acts, there was an Amendment of the marriage and divorce law of Scotland. He submitted that this was a very inconvenient mode of procedure, and that it would be far better that this clause should be brought up, if if it was a desirable clause, in the proper way, when attention could be directed to it. He submitted that it was a very inconvenient course to choose a Bill of this character to amend the marriage and divorce laws of Scotland. He noticed that the clause was a new one added after the Bill had been introduced, and he hoped that the noble Lord would be able to see his way to withdraw it and let it be brought up as a separate Bill on its merits.

Amendment moved— To leave out Clause 73."—(Earl Russell.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I see no reason for omitting this clause. As a matter of fact, it was not in the Bill as introduced; but so strong a feeling was developed in favour of Scotland following the precedent of England that the Lord Advocate in another place agreed to accept the clause. It was inserted, I think, unanimously by the Standing Committee, and passed, I believe, without objection in the other House. It is following the precedent of the English Act of last year, and I think the noble Earl will see that it is sufficiently germane to the subject with which we are dealing to make habitual drunkenness a cause for judicial separation. I am informed that it is considered equal to cruelty in actions dealing with judicial separation and divorce in Scotland. I can hold out no hope of giving way on the point.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Clause 73 agreed to.

Clauses 74 and 75 agreed to.

Clause 76.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 77 to 91 agreed to.

Clause 92.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

This is the last Amendment upon which I shall have to trouble the House with any observations, and it is one of some substance, and, I venture to think, of some importance. In the Standing Committee in the House of Commons a Motion was carried to close all refreshment rooms at railway stations at the same hours as public-houses and grocers' shops, and against that the Government representatives voted, but they were beaten by the narrow majority of one, the numbers being 17 to 16. The decision of the Standing Committee was reversed on Report stage in the other House. It was an open Division, Government tellers not being employed, and by a considerable majority the exemption was inserted. The railway interest, for what that is worth, was divided upon the matter, and I have come to the conclusion not to ask this House to reverse the decision then come to as a whole. I think that probably there is a certain convenience to those who are really travelling by rail that they should get refreshments earlier and later than the ordinary opening hours of public-houses. But then there is the question of Sundays. Rightly or wrongly there is Sunday closing all over Scotland for all public-houses, with the exception of hotels. It has been so for close on fifty years, and, whatever may be noble Lords' opinions of it as affecting England, there is no body of opinion in Scotland, at present, at any rate, in favour of reversing that state of matters. I am sure it will be obvious to your Lordships that if the licensed premises on every railway station are to be open on Sundays, there will be a very serious risk of breaches of the law and of scenes of disturbance occurring. I suppose anyone who bought a railway ticket for a penny to go to the next station would be entitled to be served in the railway refreshment bar. If, as we propose, all clubs are to be dealt with under this Bill, and all public-houses will be closed, our rail, way stations, especially in large towns, would not be particularly orderly on Sunday afternoons. I venture to think that the right thing to do is to close these places on Sundays. I am quite sure that to do so will be in conformity with public opinion in Scotland. I am informed that within five miles of the centre of Glasgow there are no less than fifty-three railway stations at which intoxicating liquors could be sold on Sundays if this proposal were not made. It would to a large extent nullify the good which I hope to get from this Bill if the Amendment is not accepted, and I trust, therefore, that there will be no opposition to it.

Amendment moved— In page 49, line 3, after the word 'to' to insert the words 'days or'; and in line 4, after the word 'time' to insert the words 'on any day other than Sunday'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

was glad that the noble Lord proposed to move this Amendment. He thought it would be a great improvement upon the Bill as it stood, and that it would meet with general approval in Scotland. It had appeared in the evidence taken before the Licensing Commission that a very favourite way of getting drink on Sundays was to take a penny ticket at a railway station and either to travel to the station to which the ticket conveyed the holder and there obtain drink, or remain in perpetual waiting in the refreshment room at the first station for the train by which it was never intended to travel.

On question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Clauses agreed to.

First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule amended and agreed to.

Third to eighth Schedule agreed to.

Ninth Schedule amended and agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported with Amendments to the House: Standing Committee negatived.

The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended.