HL Deb 06 November 1912 vol 12 cc853-74

[SECOND READING.]

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP)

My Lords, I feel quite sure that on this occasion your Lordships will expect me to refer to the loss which this House has sustained by the death of the late Lord Peel. It is quite true that the life work for which his name will always remain in English history was finished before he came to this Rouse, but after his entry here he accepted the position of Chairman of the Royal Commission upon the Licensing Laws, a position in which he was accepted by both sides in a rather acrimonious discussion as a person of extraordinary impartiality and high character. It is especially on occasions like this when we are dealing with the particular subject of this Bill that we shall miss his advice and counsel.

The Temperance Bill which I have the honour to ask your Lordships to read a second time this afternoon has been for a long time before the people of Scotland, and I should like to give, in the first place, some particulars showing the interest which is taken in this particular measure of temperance reform by the people of that country. As long ago as the years 1880, 1881, and 1882 resolutions on the lines of Local Veto were moved in another place by the late Sir Wilfrid Lawson, and they were supported by Scottish Members to the numbers of 38 to 3, 37 to 3, and 36 to 2 in those three years; and in 1884, following upon the success of those resolutions, a Bill was introduced dealing with the subject. Then the Peel Commission in 1899 referred to the subject, and the Minority Report of that Commission, while it did not recommend the adoption of a popular measure for England, spoke in these words of Scotland— In Scotland and Wales, how-ever, the case is different. There opinion is very much more advanced on the part of temperance reform, and we are prepared to suggest that at the end of a given period a wide measure of direct popular control might be applied under proper safeguards to Scotland and to Wales. In that year—1899—and on six other occasions since Bills embodying this principle have been introduced into another place, and the average vote of the Scottish Members for the measure has been 41 and against it only 7. In 1907 a Private Members' Bill was carried by a majority of 156, and in 1908 by a majority of 117.

Practically this Bill which is now before your Lordships was carried in 1909 by a majority of 110. In the year 1910 it was reintroduced, somewhat amended, and again in 1911, in which year the Secretary for Scotland promised to make it a Government measure for this session. At the beginning of this session the Bill was read a second time by a majority of 113, and since that time it has been through the regular and usual form of Standing Committee and Report in another place. Therefore we may fairly say that this Bill has received a full measure of attention, and that the people of Scotland outside the House of Commons have had ample opportunity of forming a matured opinion upon its provisions. The Bill has been supported by a number of resolutions, and some, if not all, of the resolutions which have been sent up from the larger corporations seem to show anxiety to go even further than the provisions of the Bill. I say advisedly that this Bill as it stands has received general support in Scotland.

I am anxious this afternoon to avoid dealing with Committee points, but there is one subject, that, of disinterested management, on which it is perhaps desirable that I should say something at this stage. I am quite sure that anybody who considers this question of disinterested management, attracted though he may be by the title, will find that enormous difficulties attend the practical working out of any scheme, and if any practical scheme is suggested it will be very interesting to see how far it avoids the difficulties which, as it seems to me, must be encountered by anybody who tries to deal with this question. Let us consider what some of these difficulties are. It is suggested, in the first place, that a new society should be formed. That new society must find a sufficient amount of money. The security for that money will not be very great. Supposing, for instance, that at the end of three years there was another vote in accordance with the provisions of this Bill and that a no-licence resolution was carried. It would then be binding on the Court to take away all these various licences, and the money which had been subscribed for the purpose of business management would be left without any opportunity of earning the 4 per cent. which I think is generally suggested as a proper amount. It is not as if disinterested management was to exist at the same time as other forms. It would be necessary that in these areas there should be a monopoly of disinterested management and that no other form of management should be allowed within the area, whether large or whether small. Those, lily Lords, are at any rate two of the primary objections, which perhaps we shall have an opportunity of considering again when your Lordships come to the Committee stage.

I can imagine an objection being raised to this Bill upon the ground that it goes further in the direction of making a distinction between the law in Scotland and the law in England with regard to licensing. That is perfectly true. But it has always been accepted—it was accepted by the Majority and Minority Reports of the Licensing Commission—that there is a great distinction between the licensing laws in the two countries. The governing Act at this moment with regard to the licensing laws is the Consolidation Act of 1903, with which certain amendments were also incorporated. Under that Act the Licensing Court is of a popular, or in some cases semi-popular, character. In the larger towns of 7,000 population and upwards the Court consists, as it has done for something over 150 years, of provosts and bailies. The smaller towns in Scotland, except in the case of certain royal burghs, are merged in the county system. In the counties, there are various licensing dis- tricts, each of which has a Court consisting, as to one-half, of justices elected by the justices of the county, and, as to the other half, of county councillors elected by the county council, and the Appeal Court consists of an equal number of the two classes. So your Lordships will see that there is in Scotland a popular element which is quite unknown in this country, and which makes the administration of the licensing laws in Scotland far more amenable to public opinion than is the case with us in this perhaps less fortunate country.

But there are a great many differences in the laws of the two countries. There is the closing hour. In London we have a closing hour of half-past twelve at night. In Scotland the closing hour is ten o'clock; and whereas in towns and populous places in England the closing hour is generally eleven p.m., it is only in the country districts of England that we have the same closing hour as obtains throughout Scotland. The licensing authorities in Scotland have wider powers. They have unlimited discretion over the certificates, and they may make binding regulations with regard to the method and expediency of issuing these certificates. There are only three classes—hotels, public-houses, and grocers' certificates—and it is always expressly stated in these certificates that they shall continue in force until May 28 following and no longer. One of the consequences of that is expressed in an extract from the Report of the Royal Commission which I shall venture to read to your Lordships— In Scotland there has never been the slightest doubt as to the state of the law. The absolute discretion of the licensing authority over all kinds of certificates, without any exception, has always been recognised. It is true that in some parts of Scotland certificates have been renewed front year to year without much question, but any one investing in a public-house ought to have done so with full knowledge of the law, which is contained on the face of the certificate in the words that the certificate is to continue in force for that one year and no longer. And lastly, illustrating the difference between the licensing laws in the two countries, is the point that the tied house system does not generally prevail in Scotland, and that the law does not recognise anybody as having an interest in the licence except the occupier.

Now a word with regard to this Bill and the alterations it will make. In the first place, it is no exaggeration to say that it does not introduce any new principle. Power to reduce the number of existing licences is already within the power of the licensing authority, and they have often exercised that power. What this Bill does, however, is to transfer from the Licensing Court to the voters of the district the power of reducing or abolishing entirely the licences in that area. Being merely a transfer of the power which already exists from the Court to the people of the locality this proposal can scarcely be I criticised, I think, by anybody as being of a very revolutionary character. It is true we hope that in the future this power will be more largely exercised. It is, in fact, a Referendum, and as such I venture to recommend it to Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who has spoken upon that subject in this House. It is a Referendum for special purposes to a certain confined area on three particular points.

The Bill provides that after June 1, 1917, there shall be power to ask for a poll on these particular questions. Until that time the powers of Licensing Courts remain exactly as before, with two exceptions, to which I shall refer in a moment. They will have full power to experiment should they desire to give licences to houses which will be under disinterested management. They will have full power also to see that the houses in future shall be, if they think it desirable, improved and made more attractive. The Bill in no way limits their powers, except that it says that no structural alterations may be ordered by the Licensing Court between now and the date when this Bill comes into operation. The Bill provides that there shall be an earlier closing hour than at the present time. It would, perhaps, be clearer to say that the opening hour is to be made later than now. Instead of public-houses opening at eight o'clock in the morning, they are in future not to open until ten a.m. The period fixed in the Bill is the one which was recommended by the Peel Commission, which also contemplated a large reduction of licences in the meantime; and the period of five years, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, gives ample time for all concerned to make any precautions they may think necessary.

If your Lordships will turn to the Bill, you will see that in subsection (2) of Clause 2 the questions which are to be submitted to the electors at a poll are three-fold. They will have an opportunity of voting for a no-change resolution, or for a limiting resolution, or for a no-licence resolution; and in the next subsection of the same clause your Lordships will see the conditions upon which a no-licence resolution may be passed. Three-fifths at least of the number of votes recorded must be in favour of the no-licence resolution, and not less than 30 per cent. of the eloctors in the area must have voted in favour thereof. Your Lordships will see in the first part of Clause 3 what will be the result if such a resolution is carried. In that case no certificate shall be issued by the authority, except that they may grant certificates in respect of hotels, restaurants, and so on, on condition that no drinking bar is attached to them. The limiting resolution must be carried by a majority of the votes recorded, and not less than 30 per cent. of the electors in the area must have voted in favour of it. Your Lordships will see in subsection (2) of Clause 3 the result of carrying that resolution, which is that the Licensing Court may not grant a number which shall exceed 75 per cent. of the number of certificates in force at the time the resolution is carried. There are minor provisions with regard to the transfer of votes. It is provided in Clause 2 that if a no-licence resolution is not carried, the votes in favour of that resolution are added to those in favour of a limiting resolution; and in the same way in Clause 4 it is provided that where a further poll is taken in any area where a limiting resolution or a no-licence resolution is in force and the majority of the votes recorded is not in favour of the repeal of such resolution, such repeal shall not be carried.

In the first part of Clause 4 your Lordships will see that three years elapse between one vote and another. In Clause 5 there are a number of supplemental provisions, one of which says that the request shall be signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors. Another says that on the day on which the poll is taken the certificated premises shall remain closed, and another is to the effect that the poll shall be by ballot. Clause 7 touches upon a point to which I have already referred—the later hour of opening, namely, ten o'clock instead of eight; and Clause 8 deals with the question of clubs. Here your Lordships will see various important amendments to the Act of 1903. It is now thought desirable to strengthen the provisions with regard to clubs in certain directions. Your Lordships will see how that is done. Under the present system clubs must be vouched for by two justices of the peace of the county. In future it must be by two justices of the peace who for the time being are members of the Court of Appeal. In Clause 10 your Lordships will see that the question of theatres is dealt with, and in Clause 12 we apply to Scotland a provision which is already the law for this country as to closing certificated premises in case of riot. Clause 13 is a small one inserted in response to a demand from the trade. Clause 15 your Lordships will see some definitions of importance. There is, first of all, the definition of "area" and of "elector." The electors in this matter will include the Parliamentary electorate, and, in addition to them, Peers and all women married or unmarried who have a qualification, but husbands and wives do not vote for the same qualification.

It is only right that I should explain to your Lordships that provisions of a somewhat similar character are in existence in various other countries throughout the world, and they have acted there to the complete satisfaction, so far as we can tell, of the majority of the population affected. There are already a great many areas in this country where there is no public-house. It is quite true that that has been attained, not by vote in favour of such a procedure, but because the landlord's action has deprived the population there of any opportunity of having a licence. The landlord, of course, has power to prevent a licence being asked for. In Toxteth Park, Liverpool, there are no fewer than 94,000 people who live without a public-house in their area. In London, on the estates of the Artisan Labourers' Dwellings Company, 40,000 people live without any licence on those estates. In Letchworth the prohibition was confirmed by ballot of all men and women of twenty-five years and over; there voted in favour of opening a public-house 521, and against 1,117. In Throckley, a large colliery village near Newcastle-on-Tyne, they have had prohibition for forty years. On several occasions a vote has been taken at largely attended meetings there on the subject, but the action of the colliery company has always been approved. In Canada, out of nine provinces, no less than eight have the powers for which Scotland is asking in this Bill, and that, of course, is quite apart from the number of districts in those provinces which have adopted and made use of the powers given in the 'Bill. Practically in the whole of Canada they have the powers which Scotland is asking for in this Bill.

In the United States of America forty-two out of the forty-nine States possess these powers, and it is a curious fact that of the 87,000,000 people who make up the population of that country 41,000,000 live in no-licence areas. Amongst the Colonies and Dominions with power to adopt total prohibition there are New Zealand, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Cape Colony, and the Transvaal. I have not thought it necessary to-day to enter upon the larger question of temperance or of the licensing laws. The evil effects of intemperance, not only to the individual but also upon our larger national life, are common facts within the knowledge of noble Lords on both sides of the House, and I have been content with commending this Bill to your Lordships this afternoon as a businesslike and simple measure designed to reduce those evils. This power has worked well in the Dominions and elsewhere, and is desired by the people of Scotland. In these circumstances I venture to hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I desire to associate myself entirely with the tribute paid by the noble Earl at the commencement of his speech to the services which the late Lord Peel rendered on the Commission over which he presided for so many years. As the noble Earl said, Lord Peel gained for himself in that difficult work a reputation for fairness and impartiality which I think will never be forgotten either in Scotland or south of the Tweed. Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to say a word of congratulation to himself upon the accuracy with which he stated the existing law of Scotland and the clearness with which he expounded the provisions of this Bill so far as he went into them. I am sure he must have spent a certain amount of "study in getting up the existing state of matters, which is naturally not altogether familiar to him. If he will accept a compliment from me, I may tell him that I do not think, so far as the existing law is concerned, there is a single point upon which it is necessary for me to controvert anything which he stated.

We are engaged to-day in discussing a part of a very large question. I shall not weary your Lordships by going far into the general considerations, although I do think the noble Earl somewhat underrated—I do not say unfairly, but with the skill of a practised advocate—some of the points of great change which this Bill undoubtedly does make in the existing state of affairs. The present system, as the noble Earl told your Lordships, is one of magisterial discretion. It is now proposed to substitute for that, at least to a large extent, for some powers remain, a popular vote—a more or less popular vote, because the areas are so restricted and the proportion of people necessary to vote in order to bring about the change proposed is so small that I do not think it can fairly be described as to any extent a reference to the people as a whole. Let us clearly understand one point. The option which is to be exercised is only an option to prohibit retail sale. There is nothing in the nature of general prohibition in this Bill. It is not prohibition of manufacture in any area, or prohibition of what I venture to call general sale, but only a prohibition of retail sale over the bar or over the counter as the case may be.

I agree with the noble Earl that this proposal in one form or another of giving more popular control in this matter has been for some years before the people of Scotland, and that in a general way it has received approval. Various suggestions have been made, most of which have now been given up. The noble Earl stated, quite correctly, that in some of the burghs of Scotland those who have to decide these matters are in the last resort dependent on the popular vote for their position, but there is in no sense direct election for the particular purpose to give them the powers which they have to discharge, and I do not think many people would advocate mixing up the question of the control of public-houses with our general county council elections or other matters of that kind. The idea at one time suggested of having a Board elected for this particular purpose has been, I think, now altogether abandoned. The noble Earl gave an account of the history of this question, but he did not tell us the history particularly of this Bill. It is a Private Members' Bill adopted by the Government, and I think on many of its pages it bears unmistakable traces of very mingled handiwork.

As far as I understand, a Bill on these lines was first introduced at about the conclusion of the Parliament which ended in 1906. There were other Bills in 1908, 1909, and 1910, which met with varying fortunes in another place. As I understand it, this Bill, or a Bill practically the same as this one, was presented in 1910 in which all the Government Amendments of the previous year were adopted by the promoters and also other suggestions, some from the Unionist side of the House, as to clubs, and that it is in that form that this Bill was ultimately adopted by the Government. I frankly confess that the noble Earl did not overstate his case in so far as the support which has been given to the general principles of this Bill by many temperance societies in Scotland and by church organisations of various kinds. At the most this Bill is an experiment. In my own opinion it is a very large experiment. I also admit that the present state of matters in Scotland urgently requires reform, and I am not at the moment prepared to suggest any method which would be more likely to receive general approval in Scotland than the power to try the experiment that is given in this Bill.

I do not want to take a pessimistic view of the state of matters in Scotland. There is improvement, continuous improvement, in the matter of intemperance. There is, as statistics show, a considerable decrease in the consumption of spirits in spite of the increase of population. But, my Lords, the improvement is slow, and I think the possibility of quickening that rate of progress urgently demands the attention of all who have the interests of the country at heart. We should unite to diminish what Mr. Arthur Balfour described as the "great and ever present tragedy of drink." No one is fonder of his fellow-countrymen than I am or prouder of their achievements, but it is impossible for any one to mix among the people in parts of their daily life, especially at their holiday times, without a sense of profound shame at the sights which one is obliged to witness. No one of your Lordships who has seen Glasgow on a great Edinburgh holiday, or Edinburgh on a Glasgow holiday, can deny—no candid man can deny—that there is a real case for consideration and reform. I agree with those who say that legislation is required and that legislation can do something. But, my Lords, legislation cannot do everything. Legislation, however wise and well considered, is no substitute for what I venture to describe as moral self-control on the part of the individual. You may help by diminishing temptation. You may in that way decrease intemperance. The Legislature has admitted that it is so, because for longer than any of us can remember it has regulated this traffic. In no part of the country is the sale of strong drink absolutely unlimited and at the sweet will of the seller. It has always been the subject of regulation. If you go in for blank, pure repression and for nothing else you are not only bound to fail, but in some aspects you will intensify the very evil you desire to cure.

We have gone very far in the diminution of the public-house; in some respects I venture to think we have gone too far. And here I touch for a moment upon differences which I know exist between the conditions in England and in Scotland. In Scotland we have disadvantages. We have to deal with the fact that the popular drink is stronger and less easy to control in its effect than the more popular beverage south of the Tweed. But we have another special difficulty in Scotland. It is that in Scotland much less than in England is the public-house the club, so to speak, of the working-class population. I do not know why it is so, but the fact remains. There is, therefore, always a greater risk in Scotland of the absence of that sensible, wise public opinion which prevails in well-managed public-houses. I do not think I am using too strong language when I say that the ordinary public-house in Scotland, at any rate in the urban districts, approaches much more nearly to what we know as the gin palace than the ordinary public-house as you know it in England. It is far too apt to become merely a place for the sale of drink and nothing else. In my opinion, it would be much better if we could raise its position and make it much more than it is at present a place for social enjoyment, for recreation, for sensible, rational pleasure, rather than the mere drinking-shop into which it too often degenerates.

As I have said, you cannot altogether by legislation eliminate drink, but you can do away with some of its worst evils, and I agree with the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill that the time has conic when the public opinion of Scotland in favour of legislation should be given effect to. The legislation that we have in force now recognises the manifold mischiefs which arise from the sale of drink, and it goes in the direction of preventing the undue multiplication of places for sale. I go further and say that public opinion in Scotland is ripe for further control and for the further curtailing of opportunities for the purchase of drink. Then arises the question how it can most judiciously be done and who is to do it. In recent times we have extended the area of local self-government. Education, the Poor-law, Public Health, and a great many other things are now regulated locally by popularly-elected bodies, and people are more and more becoming accustomed to the management of their own affairs. I agree quite ungrudgingly that the time has come when my fellow-countrymen in Scotland may fairly be trusted in this matter to manage their own affairs, if only you can get them consulted fairly and fully in a proper way and after due deliberation. I go further and say that if you want to reduce public-houses this is the only way in which you can do it. It would be an altogether unfair burden to put upon the justices to ask them to do it of their own motion. They would have a difficult and delicate task in the selection of those licences which they would have to refuse. It is the people themselves who have much the most direct interest in this matter. To a large extent control is local, because the magistrates are those who have a real knowledge of the locality; but their difficulties are very great, because, after all, the immense majority of them are individuals to whom it would not matter a bit if there was not a public-house in the whole area over which they have control. That is the reason why the people who are mostly concerned should be given in this matter a certain amount of management of their own affairs.

The question of area is a very great problem. The noble Earl passed over this matter very lightly. I venture to say that the areas which are selected in this Bill are absolutely impossible. Urban and rural divisions are wholly different, and the boundary lines of ordinary local government will not do for this purpose. I speak feelingly and from some experience. I was chairman of the Welsh Sunday Closing Commission about twenty years ago, and the one thing that was brought prominently to my mind, which I shall never forget, was the inexpediency of a great many different areas with different conditions in close contiguity and without a very strong dividing line. If you have a community in a valley with hills surrounding it you can put them all under one condition of affairs, and if their condition of affairs is different from their neighbours' it does not do so much harm; but if you divide the valley by the stream instead of by the watershed and a man can go across a bridge and find public-houses open on that side when they are shut on his side, you are putting the greatest possible premium on difficulty and disadvantage. In this matter the provisions in the Rill will not stand a moment's criticism. The areas are much too small.

I shall not go far into this matter on the Second Heading debate, but I will give one illustration. I have had prepared a plan which gives the exact circumstances in one of the towns I know best, Alloa, which is three miles from my own home. Under this Bill Alloa will be divided into four wards, but those wards are in the main divided by the chief street which goes from end to end of the burgh, and it is the simple fact that if this Bill were to pass as it stands, and if the voters in one of the wards were to resolve to shut the public-houses, they would shut the majority of public-houses in the burgh; yet there is not one single point along the whole length of the main street at which you cannot, by simply crossing the street, go into any of the other three wards, and there you might find not only hotels but public-houses and licensed grocers' premises open without any restriction. That is a state of affairs which cannot possibly be approved of. The plan of this burgh, which I have put on the Table of your Lordships' House, is open to inspection and to criticism by those who are in favour of the particular provisions of the Bill. If this Bill is to do any good there will have to be a very large reconsideration of the areas, and there will have to be also, in my humble opinion, a reconsideration of the numbers who are required to vote. Take my case again. Number 2 ward in the burgh of Alloa has 530 voters; yet if 160—I think that would be the proportion according to the Bill—were to vote in favour of closing public-houses the majority of the public-houses in that burgh would be compulsorily closed. There are something like 2,000 or 2,200 voters in Alloa. How can it be said that a scheme which puts it into the power of 160 to effect this great change can be a real taking of the opinion of the people who are most concerned?

Again, I think some of the burghs are much too small for this purpose. Take the burgh of Culross, near my own home. It is one of the Dunfermline district of burghs, and was represented in the House of Commons by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. In that burgh there are not 400 voters. A large coal mine has been opened in the immediate neighbourhood, but in the county, and I submit that it is absolutely impossible to separate a little area like this from the district round about it. This is not the occasion to move an Amendment. I am merely indicating the absolute absurdity of these proposals, which, mind you, have run the gauntlet of criticism in another place. They have been before Grand Committees; they have had discussion in the House itself; and they represent at the present moment the summit of wisdom in this matter of areas which is put before us. I dare say I shall have difficulty in making a thoroughly satisfactory area, but I will leave the subject now by saying that it is my intention to endeavour to substitute a more rational proposal than this when we reach the Committee stage.

The noble Earl went somewhat fully into the question of compensation and of so-called property in licences, and with a great part of what he said I find myself in agreement. I agree with him that in the strict sense of the term there is no real vested interest and no real actual property in a licence. It is perfectly true that in every Scottish licence words are inserted stating that the licence is for one year and no longer. The difference between England and Scotland is not quite so great as the noble Earl would have us believe. I have laid stress upon it in the past—I used it when I was responsible for the Act of 1903 —that it is more or less an accident that this has survived in Scotland more than in England, because in one of the early Acts applying to England—the Act of 1823, I think it was—the words there are "for one year and no longer" also. The point really is this, that a system of renewal has grown up. The publican who obeys the law, who conducts his business on sound and proper lines, gets a renewal, and he knows that if he goes on conducting his business on those lines he will get a renewal almost as a matter of course. And I go so far as to say that it is in the public interest that he should do so, because the mere fact that he gets the renewal in this way is a premium on that sound management which you want to encourage. No other system is possible. It is all very well to say that it is not a renewal of an old licence but a new licence each year. No doubt if the present condition of affairs was to be allowed to continue those who conduct the trade at present would be satisfied with the present condition of affairs. But you are here coming down and altering the system, and you avow that you are doing it in the public interest so as to secure a reduction in the number of licences. It seems to me that when we are ourselves making this change we are bound to consider the proper rights which have grown up under the present system and to deal justly and reasonably with those interests. I say, quite frankly, that so far as I am concerned I think the period given in the Bill—namely, five years—is too short, and in Committee some material addition will have to be made to that period.

The noble Earl dealt with the matter of disinterested management, and referred to two of the great difficulties in the way of introducing a system of that kind. He pointed out that there might be no security for the money invested, and that it would be necessary to give these bodies a monopoly. I am not quite so sure of the second point. I think those who are advocates for this particular system of management have been in the past prepared on many occasions to invest their money for the purpose of trying experiments even when they had not a monopoly. I do not think the fact that they may lose their money is an argument against the scheme. It might be an argument against an individual so investing his money, but if he chooses to do so there is no public interest hampered by his being allowed to make that investment. I profoundly regret that this system of disinterested management does not find a place in the Bill. I believe myself, from a somewhat lengthy study of the problem involved, that this is one of the most hopeful lines of reform, and I will tell your Lordships why. I am not going at length into the matter, because I propose to move Amendments in Committee to give effect to the policy I have indicated. Why I say it is the most hopeful line of reform is this. It would once for all practically eliminate the idea of private profit from the sale of spirituous liquors.

I say fearlessly, from a forty years' experience of sitting on a licensing Bench, I that the greatest problem we have to consider is, not so much the number of houses, but the method and the system of management which goes on in those houses. If you could only transfer to independent and unselfish management the sale of liquor you would make a longer step towards wise and sensible and practical reform than anything else which has been done in this country for many years. There is a strong, continuous, and ever-increasing volume of opinion in favour of this reform. I am perfectly aware that it is opposed by extreme partisans on both sides. Not unnaturally it is not liked by the trade. Equally not unnaturally it is disliked by the extreme temperance man who thinks that any use of alcohol is little short of a deadly sin. But if you agree with me that you cannot altogether prohibit but that you must regulate, you will do more by regulating on wise and sound lines and giving an interest to the person who keeps the house to see that it is kept in an orderly, systematic, and proper manner than by any police regulations or any penalties which you can impose. I should like to see a body of men with no private interest, with nothing but the public interest, to serve given a free hand to conduct experiments of this kind. Under the existing system it is the object of the trader to sell as much as he can. I do not blame him. It is his livelihood. He has to do it to live. His livelihood depends on what he can make. His interest is to extend the sale of drink in every way he possibly can, and it is in that respect that his interest is the exact opposite of the interest of the community. The interest of the community is that there should be wise and reasonable facilities for-procuring drink which individuals require, but there should be no premium in any way upon, or undue temptation to, excess.

For fear of being misunderstood I wish to say that I make no general charge against those engaged in the retail trade. I am proud to number many of them among my personal friends. I believe that in the great majority of cases they are fair in the conduct of their business. But some push the sale unduly. As restrictions are brought in so the temptation to push the sale increases. If you want a real, wise, sensible reform which is safe and practical and likely to bring good results you will endeavour to put this trade into the hands of those who have nothing to gain by unduly pushing it. On that point I shall venture to move an Amendment when we get to the Committee stage. The other matters of which the noble Earl spoke towards the close of his speech are, without exception, purely Committee points. I do not know that I have myself either thought of or received any material representation against them.

I agree that the position of clubs is one which requires a great deal of consideration. I do not think that the strengthening of the law proposed in this Bill goes in any way against public policy. But you must remember this, that it is better in the public interest that such drinking as I venture to say there must be should be in open houses rather than in clubs. The more you drive it underground, the more you put it into places where all sorts of irregularities can crop up without supervision, the more harm you do to the cause we all have at heart. That is an additional reason why I like the idea of the public-house being under disinterested management. It is not a club, it is open to the police, any one can go into it; yet there is a strong premium on those who have the management of it to see that things are done wisely and properly. I venture to hope that reasonable time will be given to us before we are asked to take the next stage of this Bill. Two of the Amendments which I have indicated will require a certain amount of consideration. I should like to be able to give notice of them, as I think I shall be able to, in the early days of next week, and it will be in the interest of all concerned if reasonable time can be given to us for the consideration of the important questions which arc involved.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My Lords, like Lord Balfour I venture to congratulate the noble Earl opposite on the accuracy with which he stated the present Scottish licensing law. But I roust also say that he seemed to me rather to underrate the importance of this Bill. The noble Earl said that really the Bill is not a very large extension of the powers which already exist. He stated that at the present time, which is the fact, the licensing authority has power to take away licences and exercises that power with a considerable amount of freedom. But the extension of that power contained in this Bill is so large as to almost create a different power. If the noble Earl maintains that the giving of power to a small proportion of the electors to absolutely prohibit all other persons from obtaining drink within the area is anything like the same thing, or even that it can be compared with the power which the licensing authority at present exercises, I am afraid I cannot agree with him. I should like to see the licensing authority which would state that no one within its area should be able to get any drink. You cannot conceal from yourselves that whether you approve of this Bill or not it introduces an entirely new principle into our legislation. This Bill, as Lord Balfour said, proceeds by mere blank repression. I confess that I retain some regard for liberty. This Bill proceeds merely by repression, and says "You must live according to Act of Parliament."

Let me point out one or two of the unfortunate consequences which, as I think, must occur if this Bill comes into operation. In the first place, as you leave out clubs the result will be that you will increase the number of clubs. In the second place, as you propose to prohibit retail sale you will increase purchase in larger quantities from grocers. In the third place, the licensing authority themselves, if there is a possibility that all licences may be stopped, will naturally be rather less inclined to act than they are at the present time. When His Majesty's Government made up their minds to fall in with the extreme temperance party I think it was a great pity that they simply adopted the Bill of a private Member. It would have been much better if they had drafted a Bill of their own which was free from all those defects of which there are very many in this Bill. I readily admit that there is a considerable feeling in Scotland in favour of some measure of this sort, but whether Scotland is in favour of this particular Bill is altogether another matter.

The noble Earl passed rather lightly over the various provisions of the Bill. I think he might have explained to us some of the defects which undoubtedly exist in the Bill. I did not, however, hear him mention that there were any defects in the Bill. Let me go through a few of them. In the first place, I venture to think that your machinery is faulty from the very beginning. Let us start with the means which are to be taken to obtain a requisition. Your Lordships will find it in Clause 5, subsection (1). Under that clause any elector who wishes to start a requisition has merely to go to the clerk of the local authority and demand from him a paper. We know that there are a certain number of persons greatly interested in stopping the sale of drink altogether. Now supposing all the thirty persons go and demand a paper. They are entitled to have it. Then they sally forth canvassing up and down the streets and finally return, one, we will say, with two names on his paper, another with fifteen, and another with fifty. They take these to the clerk to the local authority. In the first place, how is the clerk to the local authority to have any idea as to whether those names are genuine or not? How is he to know what were the means of solicitation adopted in order to obtain those names? The requisition is lodged, and when it has been lodged it necessarily follows that there must be a poll. There are no means in the Bill, so far as I can see, of securing any scrutiny or examination of the list, unless I am referred to subsection (4) of Clause 5, where it is provided that the Secretary for Scotland shall make rules for regulating the procedure with respect to requisitions. Further than that there is nothing in the Bill with regard to the scrutiny of these names. I venture to think it is a very bad habit into which we have at present got that matters of very great importance, which ought to be settled in the Bill by Parliament, are relegated to some Department and legislative power placed almost entirely in their hands. The next stage is the poll. Every voter is told he may only vote once. I want to know how it can be just to give two votes to a person who is in favour of no-licence. Surely every man ought to be able to make up his mind before he goes to the poll as to what he wishes, and if he does not obtain his wish he must wait until three years afterwards when another poll occurs. How can it be just to say that a man who votes for a no-licence resolution and is defeated shall then have his vote transferred to the limiting resolution? It would be just as reasonable to say that a second vote ought to be given to the person who is in favour of limiting the licences. I cannot see how it can be fair to insert this provision in a Bill which is supposed to be fair and impartial between all.

The next question is that of the hour of opening, The Bill provides that the hour of opening public-houses shall be changed from eight to ten o'clock in the morning. I do not see any particular objection to that change. But the noble Earl must remember that circumstances are very different in different localities, and that while there may be no particular reason for opening before ten o'clock in some places there may be every reason in others for opening at an earlier hour. I would suggest to the noble Earl that before we go into Committee on this Bill he should consider whether it might not be wise to leave this to the discretion of the licensing authority of the place, and say that the opening hour should in no case be earlier than eight or later than ten o'clock, leaving the time between to be settled by the licensing authority. Lord Balfour has spoken about the areas. I concur with him in thinking that the areas as they are at present in the Bill cannot stand. I will not go into that matter now, but it is clear that this question must be considered very carefully indeed when we reach the Committee stage. So much for the machinery of the Bill.

Let me now say a word or two with regard to the omissions. In the first place, I think the most prominent omission is that of which Lord Balfour spoke—disinterested management. Your Lordships will remember that in the other House of Parliament there was very great difference of opinion indeed on this question of disinterested management, and I think the Government found themselves more hardly pressed on that particular question than on any other that was considered. All the more moderate advocates of licensing reform were in favour of disinterested management, and when we come to the Committee stage no doubt we shall have a very interesting debate on that subject. There is another omission. There is no system proposed for compulsory insurance. I have this afternoon presented a petition from half of the licence-holders in Scotland in favour of compulsory insurance. I do not know at the present time what the attitude of the Government is with regard to that particular question. There was great difference of opinion in the other House even among the reforming party. What the Government did was this. They opposed for different reasons every scheme that was placed before them. One objection seemed to me perfectly futile. They said it was necessary for the Government to guarantee an insurance scheme if they admitted it into the Bill. Those who proposed compulsory insurance never suggested for one moment that the Government should guarantee anything. Indeed, as the noble Earl knows, when there was a question of national insurance the Government entirely refused to guarantee anything. Another objection that was taken to the various schemes was this. The Government said that the relief proposed was not complete. No doubt the relief was not complete, but it was relief as far as it went. The whole question was whether it was better that no relief at all should be obtained or such relief as the scheme provided.

My difficulty in understanding the attitude of the Government was increased very much by the speeches made by members of the Government on this subject. On the Second Reading Mr. Ure, the Lord Advocate, said— The question of compulsory insurance has always presented itself to me in two aspects—first, as an indispensable act of justice to a dispossessed publican and, secondly, as a method of smoothing the path to the passing of a no-licence resolution. Yet after that Mr. Ure opposed every proposal that was put forward. Mr. McKinnon Wood, the Secretary for Scotland, although he had opposed every scheme that was submitted, stoutly maintained, on the Third Heading, that he was not an enemy to compulsory insurance. He said— If the trade can prove to Parliament that compulsion is necessary, and that, if not the whole trade, a large majority are in favour of compulsory insurance, I not only would not view it with hostility, but with a very benevolent eye. It must not lie said, then, that I am hostile to the trade insuring itself. After those statements I do not understand that the Government can be hostile to a good scheme of compulsory insurance. During the month of October very great progress has been made in this matter. I am not speaking in any way as an advocate for the trade; I am merely stating facts that I know. This very day I presented a petition representing more than one-half of the licence-holders in Scotland in favour of a scheme of mutual insurance. I will not say anything further on that point now. It must, of course, be considered when we get into Committee.

Then there is the question of clubs. I confess that to me the position of the Government in the matter of clubs is most extraordinary. They say that, their reason for not including clubs is that clubs have always been dealt with in a separate manner. But they must remember that this Bill introduces a new kind of legislation altogether with regard to the licensing question; and when you say that electors may make it impossible for any one to obtain drink in public-houses it is very natural that those who frequent public-houses should say, "Oh, but, why not extend this to clubs?" If you do not so extend it the result is this, that the clubman will be at perfect liberty to vote as he chooses because he knows that any vote he may give will not in any way affect him, and thereby he may be far less indisposed to close public-houses than he would be if his vote was also to apply to himself. I do not know whether it is possible to make any distinction between residential and drinking clubs; but that, again, is one of the matters we shall have to consider in Committee. I hope adequate time will be given to us to draft Amendments. That course would be as much for the benefit of the noble Earl opposite as for our benefit, as the Government will naturally wish to have ample opportunity of considering the Amendments before they are discussed.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 25th instant.