HL Deb 20 July 1909 vol 2 cc632-45

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lamington.)

House in Committee accordingly.

[THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

THE EARL OF CARLISLE moved to insert at the beginning, "Subject always to the provisions of Section 11 of the Licensing Act, 1902." On the Second Reading of this Bill Lord Lamington announced that he had introduced a fresh provision into the Bill which safeguarded the jurisdiction of the licensing authority under the Act of 1902. In his opinion this clause would not entirely meet the object Lord Lamington had in view, and it seemed to him that it would be far more satisfactory simply to state that this could not interfere with the law passed in 1902. Lord Peel's Commission took an immense amount of evidence and made certain recommendations. There was a Majority and a Minority Report, representing respectively the opinions of the trade and of the temperance party. In many cases those Reports did not agree, but on the subjects on which the Commission were unanimous—that was to say, on which the Majority Report and the Minority Report agreed—the late Government in 1902 introduced a Bill. It seemed to him that it would be exceedingly unwise to upset the Act of 1902, founded as it was on such a consensus of opinion and on such an amount of evidence. He therefore hoped the noble Lord would be able to accept the Amendment. Section 11 of the Licensing Act, 1902, required the consent of the licensing justices for any alteration on licensed premises proposed by the licence-holder if such alteration gave increased facilities for drinking or concealed from observation any part of the premises used for drinking or affected communication between any part of the premises in which intoxicating liquor was sold with any other part of the premises or any street or public way. This Bill should be subject to those provisions.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 5, at the beginning of the clause to insert the words 'Subject always to the provisions of Section 11 of the Licensing Act, 1902.'"—(The Earl of Carlisle.)

*LORD LAMINGTON said the Amendment would vitiate and destroy the whole object and scope of the Bill. What it was desired by the Bill to limit was not so much the discretion as the indiscretion of licensing authorities, who in certain cases acted arbitrarily and refused to allow owners to improve their public-houses. He could quote many cases of this kind. He had that day been informed of a case in Lancashire in which a man was fined £100 for improving his lavatory accommodation. In promoting this Bill he had received the support of people who were closely engaged in temperance work, and in a letter from a worker amongst the poor in Glasgow stress was laid upon the fact that the majority of the working classes desired to be sober but, being human, they must have society. The writer added— What is so sad is the general absence of facilities for intercourse. If Lord Carlisle's Amendment were adopted practically the whole scope of the Bill would be destroyed.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN) said he was not aware that any official view had been taken on the part of the Government in regard to this Bill, because, whatever their Lordships might decide, there was no prospect of the Bill passing into law this session owing to the congested state of business in another place. He thought the noble Lord was right when he said that this Amendment was scarcely consistent with the Bill, and this he pointed out upon the occasion of the Second Reading. He agreed that the Amendment read into the Bill would alter the Bill. What was this Amendment? In the year 1902 the late Government brought in a Bill, and it was passed, and by it the consent was required of the licensing justices to any alteration upon licensed premises, if such alterations in any way increased the facilities for drinking, or affected the communication, &c. That was the proposal made by the late Government, and passed into law in 1902. It was in accordance with the proposal of the Majority and Minority Reports, and now all that was proposed by the Earl of Carlisle was this, that the powers of this present Bill should be subject always to the Act of 1902. They were told that that was fatal to the Bill. It was because he thought it would be fatal that he did not think that the House would be likely to accept the Bill when they really saw what it meant. He credited the noble Lord with the desire to effect a reform in licensed houses so that they might correspond with the refreshment cafeés on the Continent. He believed he had this at heart. Let him (the Lord Chancellor) see what he asked, and the grounds. They had the Majority and Minority Reports, and the Act of 1902. They had been told that the noble Lord had received letters and resolutions, and that he knew of a case where there was a £100 fine, and therefore he complained of the indiscretion of the magistrates; but what did the noble Lord wish—to substitute for that the discretion of the publican himself? He believed that the Amendment brought to light what was the frailty of the Bill, and he suggested to the noble Lord that the good intentions he desired were not effectively carried out in the Bill proposed.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY thought that the language of the Report of the Peel Commission was not quite appropriate and that there was no objection to saying that the Act of 1902 was imperfect since it did not carry out what was really intended. There was no doubt that a great number of persons were prevented from going to public-houses by the knowledge that they were for drinking only, and they were aware that the desire in the past had been to make them disagreeable. Now what was desired was to make them agreeable, and places where a man could take his wife and spend an hour, and this he believed would be accomplished to some extent if this Bill were passed.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said that as Section 11 of the Act of 1902 was not repealed by this Bill it stood to reason that everything in the Bill must be subject to that section. The Amendment, therefore, was unnecessary.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY submitted that the Lord Chancellor had forgotten the attitude which the Government took up on the Second Reading. There was, he understood, a general concurrence.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Certainly not. I objected.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said the whole object of the Bill was to attract the public from the bad public-houses to the better-conducted public-houses. That might, of course, increase drinking in the good public-houses, and therefore if magistrates, desiring to prevent the beneficent operation of the Bill, used their powers under the Act of 1902 the object of this legislation would be defeated. As their Lordships had agreed to the principle of the Bill he imagined they would resist the Amendment.

THE EARL OF CARLISLE said that as he had an Amendment a little lower down on the Paper which practically came to the same thing, he would withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CARLISLE moved another Amendment to Clause 1. The clause read— In exercising powers with respect to granting permission for structural alterations upon, or extensions to, premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors by retail the licensing justices shall not do so in such a manner as to interfere with, &c. He proposed to leave out the words "licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors by retail," and to insert the words "to which an existing on-licence as defined by the Licensing Act, 1904, is attached." The object of the Amendment was to make the Bill applicable to all old licences, but not to new licences under the Act of 1904. Under the Act of 1904 new licences were in a totally different position from old licences. The magistrates were able to impose conditions on the new licences, and the new licences were to carry a monopoly value. There was to be no vested interest in the new licences, but if the new licence-holders were allowed by this Bill to increase their premises, and do certain other things, there would inevitably be created a vested interest, which was never intended.

Amendment moved— In page 1, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words 'licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors by retail,' and to insert the words to which an existing on-licence, as defined by the Licensing Act, 1904, is attached.'"—(The Earl of Carlisle.)

LORD LAMINGTON accepted the Amendment.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN called attention to what appeared to him to be an omission from the Bill. It was intended, he presumed, that the Bill should apply to England, Scotland, and Ireland. In that case would it not be necessary, instead of referring to licensing justices, to make the general references to the various bodies which had licensing powers in the three countries?

LORD LAMINGTON said he would be quite ready to put this matter right on Report.

*LORD HAVERSHAM moved an Amendment altering the phraseology of the first clause so as to reserve the discretion of the licensing justices in carrying out the objects of the Bill. He explained that his object in putting this Amendment on the Paper was to meet the objection which the Lord Chancellor had expressed to the Bill —viz., that it limited the discretionary powers of the justices. He proposed to leave out the words which did this, and to give them discretion to do what they deemed practicable.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 8, to leave out the words not do so in such manner as to interfere with' and to insert the words have regard so far as they deem practicable to.'"—(Lord Haversham.)

*LORD LAMINGTON suggested some alternative words. He thought the point would be better met if the clause read— In exercising powers with respect to granting permission for structural alterations…it shall be the duty of the licensing authority or licensing justices to facilitate and so far as they find it practicable promote, etc.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR said the question was whether it was proposed to destroy the discretion of the justices or not. The Bill proposed that they should. Lord Haversham's Amendment was that the justices should have power to have regard, so far as they deemed practicable, to the various circumstances.

LORD BELPER thought that if the provision read that the justices should grant these facilities "so far as practicable" that would do away with the discretion of the justices, as the only question would be whether the improvements were practicable and not whether they were desirable.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I venture to suggest that we should accept the words moved by the noble Lord on the second Bench opposite, first because they are on the Paper and we have had the opportunity of considering them, and in the next place because they seem to me to be simpler than the alternative formula suggested by the noble Lord behind me. I listened with attention to what fell from the noble and learned Lord, and I must say that it does seem to me that if we take Lord Haversham's words the magistrates who will have to interpret the Act of 1902 by the light of this Bill will not have, after all, such a very difficult or contradictory task to perform. The magistrates will look first at Section 11 of the Act of 1902, and they will find therein that they are told, for example, not to sanction an alteration which gives increased facilities for drinking. Then they look at the Bill of my noble friend and they find that they are directed to have regard, so far as they deem practicable, to, amongst other things, the provision of accommodation for the supply of food and light refreshments. I cannot help thinking it could not be beyond the power of a magistrate, in deciding whether he is giving improper facilities for drinking or not, to be guided by the words he will find in this amending Bill. I hope, therefore, that if we take Lord Haversham's words the noble and learned Lord will not press his objections so severely as he was disposed to do.

THE LORD CHANCLLORsaid he preferred the words as proposed by Lord Haversham.

THE EARL OF CARLISLE moved with regard to the provision "games, music, newspapers, &.," that the words "other than unlawful games" should be inserted. This made it clear that there should be inserted. This made it clear that there should be no illegal games.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 18 after the word 'games' to insert the words 'other than unlawful games.'"—(The Earl of carlisle.)

LORD LAMINGTON accepted the Amendment.

THE EARL OF CARLISLE moved the addition of a proviso that nothing in the Bill should alter or affect the existing prohibition of gaming upon the premises, or any provision of the Gaming Act, 1845, or the existing law as to the regulation of places ordinarily used for public dancing, music, or other public entertainment under any Act of Parliament. He thought it was necessary that this should be stated clearly, because some of the supporters of the movement had written a pamphlet, which had been largely circulated, and which expressed the wish that the existing law might not be enforced.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 19, after the word 'recreation' to insert the words 'Provided that nothing herein contained shall alter or affect the existing prohibition of gaming upon the premises or any provision of the Gaming Act, 1845, or the existing law as to the regulation of places ordinarily used for public dancing music or other public entertainment under any Act of Parliament.'"—(The Earl of Carlisle.)

*LORD LAMINGTON thought the Amendment was superfluous. He had not seen the pamphlet to which the noble Lord had referred. He did not know what the exact meaning of the Amendment would be. In the Bill a provision was made for music, but this Amendment appeared to say they were not to have music. The whole thing was rather inconsistent.

THE EARL OF CARLISLE said the meaning of the Amendment was that music and dancing licences should not be taken out of the hands of the present authorities.

*LORD LAMINGTON replied that there was no intention that they should be.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR suggested that the noble Lord might accept the Amendment.

LORD BELPER thought it would be better to consider the point between now and the Report stage, so that the intention of the Bill on this point could be made clear.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY hoped the noble Earl would not press the Amendment now. There was nothing in the Bill which repealed the Gaming Act. There did not seem to be a very clear idea in the mind of the noble Earl as to what music he wanted to prevent. On account of this small confusion he thought it would be better for the noble Earl to reserve the matter until the Report stage was reached.

THE EARL OF CARLISLE said he was quite ready to reserve his Amendment. His anxiety in putting the Amendment on the Paper was to protect the Acts of the late Conservative Government. He did not quite understand whether it was proposed to remove certain sorts of music and certain kinds of dancing out of the control of the justices.

LORD LAMINGTON said this was not the intention of his Bill at all.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CARLISLE moved an Amendment to delete the last paragraph in the clause with the object of substituting a new proviso. The Amendment, he said, had been practically already discussed, and it seemed to him the words he proposed would meet the object aimed at much better than those already in the Bill. There would, it seemed to him, be endless difficulties in the way of saying what would be the chief effect of the alterations in regard to the consumption of intoxicating liquors only. This difficulty was one of the points which came before Lord Peel's Commission, and the case was cited of a publican at Pontypridd who sent in plans showing palatial alterations, providing coffee-rooms, dining-rooms, and all the accommodation which Lord Lamington desired. When the publican received permission to execute these alterations he put up a long bar. This seemed to Lord Peel's Commission to be a state of things which required meeting, but he was not certain under the noble Lord's Bill whether it could be said such a bar was for the consumption of intoxicating liquors only. It would possibly be used for the sale of cheese and biscuits.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 20 to line 1 on page 2, to leave out the words 'Provided always that no alteration in the premises or fittings, the chief effect of which would be, in the opinion of the licensing justices, to increase the consumption of intoxicating liquors only, shall be deemed to come within the provisions of this section,' and to insert the words 'Provided always that, without the sanction of the licensing justices given in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Licensing Act, 1902, no such extension or alteration shall be permitted if in their opinion—

  1. (a) It would give increased facilities for drinking, or would conceal from observation any part of the premises used for drinking, or would affect the communication between the part of the premises where intoxicating liquor is sold and any other part of the premises or any street or other pathway; or
  2. (b) It would prevent proper supervision by the licence holder or by the police, or would render difficult the proper conduct of the business.'"—(The Earl of Carlisle.)

*LORD LAMINGTON said he could not accept the Amendment. He greatly preferred the words in his Bill. If any considerable improvements were carried out on licensed premises, there would possibly be an increase in the sale of intoxicating liquor, but he thought his proposal would meet this in a better way than the noble Lord's, which would debar any improvement if any increase in the sale of intoxicating drinks, or, indeed, of any drinks, resulted.

THE EARL OF CARLISLE said his Amendment was from the Act of 1902, and the real question now was whether that Act should be repealed or not, so far as this particular matter was concerned. The late Government did, on some points, diminish the discretion of the licensing authorities, but in this matter their powers were left intact, and it seemed to him there was no sufficient ground for reversing that policy.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY hoped

THE EARL OF CARLISLE then moved to amend the proviso— Provided always that no alteration in the premises or fittings, the chief effect of which would be, in the opinion of the licensing justices, to increase the consumption of intoxicating liquors only, shall be deemed to come within the provisions of this section. by omitting the word "chief." He moved this Amendment on behalf of Lord Lytton, who was unable to be present but who had been a very keen supporter of all move-

the Amendment would not be pressed. There was nothing in the Bill which repealed the Act of 1902 or any part of it. It was undesirable to accept the Amendment, which simply proposed to re-enact a provision in the Act of 1902 that had never been repealed, thereby leading to confusion of interpretation in the Law Courts in the event of litigation arising.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR expressed agreement with the noble Marquess on the last point, and said it was one of the recurrent difficulties of Judges to construe the phraseology of Acts of Parliament in accord with the obvious and clear meaning of the English language. He could assure the noble Marquess that this Bill would not facilitate the task of the unfortunate Judges.

On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 26; Not-contents, 25.

CONTENTS.
Ailesbury, M. Falkland, V. Hindlip, L.
Bath, M. Falmouth, V. Lamington, L.[Teller.]
Salisbury, M.[Teller.] Leith of Fyvie, L.
Ashbourne, L. Macnaghten, L.
Halsbury, E. Balfour, L. Monckton, L,(V. Galway.)
Onslow, E. Brodrick, L.(V. Midleton.) Ravensworth, L.
Stradbroke, E. Clinton, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Waldegrave, E. Clonbrock, L. Saltoun, L.
Dunmore, L.(E. Dunmore.) Sanderson, L.
Churchill, V. Ellenborough, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp. Althorp, V.(L. Chamberlain.) Herschell, L.
Loreburn, L.(L. Chancellor.) Kinnaird, L.[Teller.]
Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.) Bangor, L. Bp. MacDonnell, L.
O'Hagan, L.
Colebrooke, L. Pentland, L.
Beauchamp, E.(L. Steward.) Denman, L. Pirrie, L.
Carlisle, E.[Teller.] Glantawe, L. St. Davids, L.
Carrington, E. Hamilton of Dalzell, L. Saye and Sele, L.
Liverpool, E. Hatherton, L. Weardale, L.
Haversham, L. Welby, L.

meats in the direction of improving the character of public-houses.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 21, to leave out the word 'chief.'"—(The Earl of Carlisle.)

LORD LAMINGTON said he could not accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF CARLISLE did not think he would be justified, after the Division that had just been taken, in pressing the Amendment, but he felt that the presence of the word "chief" was likely to cause confusion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CARLISLE, on behalf of Lord Lytton, moved to amend the proviso that no alterations the effect of which would be, in the opinion of the justices, to increase the consumption of intoxicating liquors only should be deemed to come within the provisions of the section, by adding alterations the effect of which would be to increase the compensation which would be payable, if the renewal of the licence were refused, to such an extent as seriously to hamper the discretion of quarter sessions in refusing to renew the licence. He believed that this Amendment really explained most of the hard cases that had been quoted by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. He believed, though he had no means of investigating the cases, that where facilities for improvement had been refused by the magistrates it had been probably owing to the fact that the houses were such that they would have their licences refused as soon as the state of the compensation levy permitted. He mentioned the case, in a very much over-licensed small town, of a beer-house which the licensing justices thought most suitable for diminution, it being probably the worst in the town. They were not able to refuse a licence to this beer-house because it was an ante-'69 beer-house; but as soon as the Act of 1904 was passed the brewery company which owned the beer-house produced plans showing great improvements to be introduced into the house. The magistrates declined to sanction those plans because it was their intention to refuse the licence of the house as soon as the state of the compensation fund allowed them to do so. They did so a year afterwards, but if the plans which had been submitted by the owners had been passed, it would have been impossible to have refused the licence. The house would have come into quite a different category, and there was no reason why this house, the worst in the place, should have an advantage given to it over other houses which were considered satisfactory. He believed that that would explain most of the hard cases quoted by Lord Lamington. Lord Lytton's Amendment was merely to give licensing justices discretion to refuse to act upon these new facilities in cases where they did not think that the licence was one permanently necessary for the needs of the district.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 22, after the word 'justices' to insert the word 'materially,' and to leave out the word 'only' and to insert the words or which would in the opinion of the licensing justices have the effect of increasing the compensation which under Section 2 of the Licensing Act, 1904, would be payable if the renewal of the licence for the premises were subsequently refused to such an extent as seriously to hamper the discretion of quarter sessions in refusing to renew the licence.'"—(The Earl of Carlisle.)

*LORD LAMINGTON was unable to accept the Amendment except so far that he agreed to the insertion of the word "materially." He held that it was not likely that any man would lay out a sum of money on his house on the mere chance of getting compensation. He would in any case only get the amount he had laid out and certainly no gain. He did not think the noble Lord's argument that public-houses were improved merely to deter the withdrawal of the licence should be put forward unless he had strong evidence to support it. The basis of compensation—namely, the difference of value between the premises licensed and the premises unlicensed—would remain the same.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CARLISLE, on behalf of Lord Lytton, moved to delete the words, "Provided also that in case of refusal to sanction alterations on the last-named ground an appeal shall lie to quarter sessions." He submitted that local justices would be far more competent to judge local requirements than the central authority who were not acquainted with the local conditions.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 1, to leave out from the word 'section' to the end of the clause."—(The Earl of Carlisle.)

THE EARL OF HALSBURY did not know what the noble Earl meant by the "central authority." He could not conceive why it should be desired to take away the right of appeal in this case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF CARLISLE moved the insertion of a new clause. He said that such a clause was in operation in the United States and in many of the Canadian provinces, and had, he believed, given general satisfaction. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, Lord Lamington said that the sole object of his Bill was that public-houses should be more open, not only to police supervision but the supervision which would be brought about by respectable people being encouraged to use public-houses for social and pleasurable intercourse. As this Amendment had that object in view, he hoped the noble Lord would accept it.

Amendment moved— After Clause 1 to insert the following new clause: 'Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of Section 11 of the Licensing Act, 1902, it shall be lawful for the licensing justices to make an order on any licence-holder directing that he shall not place or maintain upon or that he shall remove from his premises any screen opaque glass or other obstruction of any kind which in their opinion interferes with a full view of the interior of any bar upon the premises from the outside.'"—(The Earl of Carlisle.)

*LORD LAMINGTON said he could not accept the new clause. He knew there were many temperance workers who believed that if people could be seen drinking in licensed houses, it would assist temperance, but why should a person who was taking refreshment, eating a sandwich, or reading a newspaper be subjected to the gaze of everybody in the street? He thought it very hard, and objected to anything of the kind. The supervision that he referred to in the debate on the Second Reading was that of the company of respectable people who might go to a public-house were it made more decent.

THE EARL OF CARLISLE said he had no desire to force this publicity on the noble Lord, but he understood that it was his object to make public-houses respectable. The screens in question were erected to conceal what happened there.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. (No. 112.)