HL Deb 09 August 1921 vol 43 cc336-48

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

VISCOUNT PEEL

My Lords, this Bill, called the Licensing (No. 2) Bill, arose as the result. of a suggestion made by the Attorney-General in another place, that it would be as well if persons of varying opinions upon licensing questions should meet together and try to agree upon sonic common basis for a Bill. I understand that this Committee did meet. It was composed of extremists on both sides and a. certain number of other persons, and this Bill is really the result of the Committee's deliberations and it is in the nature, so far as any Bill can be, of an agreed Bill. It really embodies the sifting of all the experience which has been gained by the Control Board so far as that experience may apply to a post-war period. But I should like to say this to your Lordships. The Bill is a very nice equipoise, which may be very easily disturbed. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not apply to this Bill quite that severity of logic which you are accustomed to use, but will consider that the Bill is a compromise and has to be treated with that peculiar logic which is applicable to compromises.

I can deal with the actual details of the Bill very briefly. The main questions in these licensing matters are, T suppose, the questions of hours. The first clause, as regards hours applies, I may say, to clubs as well as to licensed premises. Previously, of course, the system was different from hat now adopted. There were a certain number of hours when liquor could not be dealt with on licensed premises, but it was open to be dealt with at other premises. That principle is now reversed, and there are a certain number of what are called permitted hours. Those hours vary as between the country and the Metropolis. In London they are nine hours, and outside London they are eight hours. But in addition to these permitted limits, there are certain outside limits of hours within which these permitted hours are allocated. They are allocated, of course, by the Justices, or, in the case of clubs, by the committees of the clubs. These outside limits of hours are from a.m. to 11 p.m. in the Metropolis, and from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. elsewhere. Pending allocation by the Justices or by the committees of the clubs, there is set out very clearly in Clause 1 a sort of standard allocation which will have effect, till the decisions of the Justices or the clubs have been made. There is one very important matter to which I think I ought to refer, and that is that there is no power for the Justices to reduce these hours. At one point, I believe, there was a good deal of discussion in another place on that subject, but it was finally settled that these, hours were not, flexible in the sense that they were not to be reduced.

The next important point is Sunday closing. Here again, the same principle is followed, and there are five permitted hours on Sundays, divided in this way: Up to two hours between 12 noon and 3 p.m. and up to three hours between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. Your Lordships will see that Wales is exempted from this provision. As we all know, there was Sunday closing in Wales before the war. But for this purpose Wales is extended and includes Monmouth, so that in Wales and Monmouth there will be complete Sunday closing for all except those who are called residents in licensed premises, if there are any, and also excepting clubs. Clubs in Wales and in Monmouth will have the same hours as are permitted in the rest of the country. There are a certain number of representations on the subject of including Monmouth in Wales, and, of course, that point may be raised later. But now I will only say that for ecclesiastical and a great many legal purposes Monmouth is included in Wales.

Then, the third Clause deals with what I believe aroused a great deal of attention, especially in London. This clause was called the"theatre-supper"clause. It is really, as your Lordships will see, a modification or an extension of Clause 1, and of the hours set out in Clause 1, because under this clause alcoholic drinks can be taken with a meal for one hour after the usual closing time, and, in addition to that one hour, half-an-hour is given for its consumption, so that if you order your refreshing drink a minute or two before the end of the hour you need not consume it until another half hour has elapsed. I think, therefore, the"theatre-supper"persons can have very little ground of complaint in the future.

Clause 4 is the forbidding clause; and Clause 5 deals with certain exemptions which have to be set out statutorily owing to the change that has been made in the length of the hours. Clause 6 adapts the provisions of the Licensing Act., 1910. Subsection (2) of this clause is a very important one, because Section 61 of the Act of 1910 disappears, and with the clause disappears also the well-known figure of the bona-fide traveller. No provision is made for him. It is considered that with the advent of charabancs and motor-buses his position is almost absurd, and that it is very difficult indeed for him to be bone fide any longer.

Clause 7 deals with certain restrictions on the hawking of liquor, which is forbidden. The clause makes this more difficult, and introduces certain provisions which, I believe, are already in force in Scotland. Then comes the question of the restriction on credit. Under Clause 8 no credit is to be allowed for on-sales. But the restriction which prevailed under the Control Board on off-sales is now entirely done away with. Clause 9 deals with the question of what is known familiarly as the"That is now done away with, I believe to the general satisfaction of the Temperance Party and the Trade, who are glad that this particular competition has been abolished. Clause 10 deals with the strength of spirits, which can be sold up to 35 degrees under proof without notice of adulteration. Clause 11, which was introduced with general acclamation in another place, provides that beer which contains less than 2 per cent. spirit shall not be subject to these regulations at all, but shall be treated purely as a temperance drink. Clause 12 contains supplementary provisions for the new work which Justices will have to do, and Clause 13 deals with the inclusion within club rules of statements as to what the permitted hours shall be. Clause 14 to some extent strengthens the penalties.

Part II deals with rather another subject. It entirely abolishes the Control Board, and excellent though the work of the Board has been no doubt in many ways, no one, when the time comes, seems to regret its disappearance. Its Regulations and Orders come to an end within a fortnight after the passing of this Bill; but two months is allowed to the Control Board to prolong its existence, mainly because it' has to hand over its property and licensed houses, both in Carlisle and the other controlled experimental areas, to the Home Secretary in England and the Secretary for Scotland in the case of Scotland. The proposal is that under these high officials these experiments should be carried on until Parliament otherwise determines. But all the Regulations and the Control Board itself entirely disappear in this brief period of time. The only other point to which I need refer is in Clause 19, which provides that billiard-playing from henceforth will not be restricted to the permitted hours, but will be allowed in licensed houses for exactly the same time as in any unlicensed place. Those are briefly the proposals of the Bill. It is, of course, something like a portent to have an agreed Bill on the licensing question, and it is a minor portent that I present it to your Lordships.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a — (Viscount Peel.)

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords. I hope the Bill will receive a Second Reading without question, and I imagine that its prospects of becoming law are fairly secure. The time has come when some Bill on this subject must be introduced and passed into law, even if it is a measure of a temporary character only. It was necessary within a few months that something new Should be placed on the Statute Book if we were to avert the calamity either that the Licensing Laws would be in a condition of chaos, or that we should have reverted to the conditions which preceded the war, conditions to which, now that we have had special light thrown upon them, no one, as far as I know, wishes to revert. The noble Viscount has reminded us that the Bill is the outcome of a Conference, and that it has the merits, or demerits, which belong to a measure rapidly produced in such conditions and for such purposes. The noble Viscount did not refrain from deprecating criticism of this measure. He described it as one to which we must not apply any logical test, and said that the equipoise of the Bill was an equipoise which had been arrived at under peculiar difficulties. He also gave us to understand that the Bill was only an indication of what was permanently to operate in these matters.

What the measure does is to harmonise, to sonic extent, the restrictions upon hours of sale, and to apply the same principle, not a complete one, of uniformity to the treatment of clubs and licensed premises. So far as it goes, it makes permanent some of the war-time Regulations, whose value has been generally, I might almost say universally, acknowledged. The decent interment of that most misnamed person, the bona fide traveller, is, I hope, now practically secured. The name has been a byword for many years, and precisely opposite was the person to whom this epithet was applied. Then, there is the prohibition of the on-sale of liquor on credit— an important point, which is all very much to the good. It was noticeable how little opposition there was to the Bill in another place. I have read with some care the rather prolonged debates in the House of Commons and in the Standing Committee of that House. The main objections to the measure, if we regard it as a temporary measure only, are either objections on local points—boundaries, the inclusion of Monmouth in Wales, the boundaries of greater London and the Metropolitan area—or objections which emanated from people who regard as harmful all restraining provisions with regard to the liquor traffic.

It might be thought that such people are scarcely to be found; but they were found, and they made themselves heard very pointedly in the House of Commons. One member, in a speech of great length, pointed out the mischief that attached to all kinds of restrictions, and went on to say that the industrial disturbances of the last two months were mainly due to the fact that the liquor which people obtained was not strong enough, that they did not get enough of it, and that, if we could secure for them more and stronger liquor, our industrial troubles might practically be regarded as likely to come to an end. That view did not obtain much support, but it was significant of the kind of objection that is taken to this Bill. Few champions will be found for arguments of that kind, however. I doubt whether we are likely to find any substantial opposition to the Bill in its progress through your Lordships' House.

I am anxious, however, to make it clear to-night that it must not be supposed that those who have been interested in these subjects for a long time are now regarding the matter as practically settled by the passing of a Bill of this kind. It must not be supposed that the difficulty which has beset the subject for so many years is now ended, and that the Bill gives a satisfactory legislative solution for the years to come. I gladly recognise that the Government have made no such claim. As was said by the Leader of the House of Commons, this measure is of a provisional and temporary character, and was produced under a pressure of business which prevented the preparation of the larger measure which was to follow. That was distinctly stated by the Leader of the House of Commons, who made it clear that the Bill was provisional and tentative because, in present conditions, time was lacking to do better. He did not deny—indeed, he stated distinctly—that the matter requires much fuller handling and larger treatment. Members on both sides of the House, both those who spoke on behalf of the Trade, Colonel Gretton and others, and those who spoke on behalf of the Temperance Party, accepted the position that the Bill was not to be regarded as having the large and far-reaching character which some people might have been disposed to give to it.

Had it been otherwise, we should have been obliged to protest against it as entirely inconsistent with the kind of promises which have been made to us quite clearly with regard to the Government's intentions of legislating in these matters. It was my responsibility, or my duty or privilege, about eighteen months ago——I think is November, 1919—to introduce to the Prime Minister an extremely strong and representative deputation of people of all sorts and kinds who desired to see a permanent character given to some, at least, of the restrictions which had been found useful during the war. The Prime Minister's reply was of a most emphatic and, to us, satisfactory character. He stated in perfectly um ambiguous terms that he was in agreement with us in desiring to semi a far-reaching measure dealing with this subject, and giving effect to provisions of the Liquor Control Board which had been found useful during the war.

He put that in perfectly clear terms, and, as I am anxious there should be no misunderstanding, I want to read two or three sentences of his reply. He said— Beneficent results have been accomplished by the restrictions imposed during the war. The very remarkable book which has been published by Mr. Carter is in itself a testimony to the admirable work done by the Board, of which he is such an able associate. I think it is very important that the work of the Board should be perpetuated, and the first step, I think, before we come to legislation of a more far-reaching character, is to prevent this work from lapsing. Unless legislation is passed to perpetuate the powers of the Board, they would lapse, I think, within twelve months after the war. It is, therefore, proposed to introduce legislation in order to deal with that matter … I am glad to be able to say that a great measure of agree-meat has been already achieved. Commissions will be set up eider this Bill, if Parliament approves, and I an, very sanguine of being able to seen the assent of parliament for the setting up of these Commissions. The Bill is ready and will be introduced before Christmas— That wee some twenty months ago, but the Bill has not yet seen the light. I trust that the Christian Churches will not be satisfied merely that you bring pressure to bear upon the Government, but that they will exercise all the necessary pressure upon Parliament to carry through the measure, to see that it is not emasculated in the course of its progress through Committee, and, if it is capable of improvements, that those improvements will be effected. That was a very clear and specific undertaking that the Government intended to introduce legislation of a more far-reaching character than this measure embodies, and we have rested upon that, and acted to the best of our powers upon the advice which the Prime Minister gave.

That promise has not yet been fulfilled; we find no fault with that. The pressure of great affairs has been such as to render it practically impossible for Ministers in responsible positions in the Government to give adequate lime for the preparation of such a measure. Your Lordships will remember that when a. week or so ago we bad under discussion the question of the business of this House, the main argument which the Government brought forward against an autumn session was that they needed time for the preparation of legislation which could not possibly be prepared while Parliament was in session. One of the matters to which, no doubt, the attention of the Government will be successfully given during the period of leisure will be the preparation of the larger measure which the Prime Minister promised. When leisure has been secured we shall await the result of the lucubrations of the Government. That further legislation is wanted to deal with this great question more thoroughly than this Bill deals with it is, I think, hardly disputed among reasonable and moderate men who look at the interests of the social life of our country as a whole. I have never ceased to urge that we need such legislation, and, while I have done so constantly, I hope I have also been consistent in approaching this matter in a spirit which avoids those extremes which in my opinion are prejudicial rather than helpful to our ultimately obtaining anything that wise men are likely to desire or that Parliament is likely to sanction.

I say deliberately, however, that no fair minded man will consider to-day the results of the restrictions which were made under the Liquor Control Board during the war without finding, as the Prime Minister found and said emphatically, that they were suggestive in a high degree of the lines upon which legislation could be usefully and permanently enacted; that they were greatly effective in bringing together the people who are usually far apart in matters of that kind; and that they pave the way in a remarkable degree for the larger legislation to which I, for one, look forward. The discussion which took place in your Lordships' House some ten days ago on the measure which was introduced by the Bishop of Oxford was evidence of the width of the subject, the variety of opinion which exists about it, and the attention which has been given to it by leading men. The speeches that were delivered in that debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, Lord Milner, Lord Astor, and others, are speeches which require consideration, and which undoubtedly show the necessity of treating the matter upon a large scale at no very distant date.

I am anxious that we should not be supposed to acquiesce now in the argument most powerfully, and indeed fiercely, urged upon us from the Woolsack the other day, when the noble and learned Lord expressed his view as to the mischief of imposing upon the minority, by the vote of a majority, something which the majority believes to be for the common good, while the minority does not. That argument was fatal to a good deal of the law as it now stands on the Statute Book. I suppose all the Acts dealing with the closing of shops, and the like, are Acts which, by special provision, are made to depend upon the wish of the majority as against the wish of the minority. The compulsion is not due to universal opinion, but to opinion laid down by the majority as against the minority. The noble and learned Lord told us that he was going to devote the week, which elapsed before this measure was introduced, in an endeavour to reconcile his speech on that occasion with the measure which is before us tonight. We know that there is no mind more agile than that of the noble and learned Viscount, and no doubt he has succeeded in finding a reconciliation between his speech on that occasion and this measure.

At any rate, it does not affect the practical issue before us now, which is that the measure should receive a Second Reading. I hope it will. The whole subject needs more discussion and larger legislative endeavour, but that can be postponed. We are perfectly willing to acquiesce in the Government's desire to postpone further legislation, and to be content with this smaller measure, in present circumstances, for dealing with what is absolutely and imperatively necessary. When the time conies I have no doubt whatever of being able to show, in this House or elsewhere, that the lessons and experience gained during the war would, in a permanent measure, require to receive better treatment than, perhaps, they have received in this shorter and more temporary measure. I am anxious, to-day, simply to make sure that there is no supposition that we, who claim to be moderate and reasonable reformers in this difficult field, have accepted this measure as more than a temporary makeshift, although as a temporary makeshift we are ready to give it the fullest possible weight, and to see it read a second time in this House.

LORD CLWYD

My Lords, before this Bill is read a second time I should like to refer to a point in the measure which is of special interest to Wales, and that is the inclusion of the County of Monmouth in Wales for Sunday closing purposes. I wish in a few sentences to express not only my great personal satisfaction that this is so, but to assure your Lordships that the great majority of the people of Wales share that feeling of satisfaction.

If I may be allowed to refer to it for a moment, I would like to remind your Lordships of what has taken place in regard to this question. This proposal has had the unanimous recommendation of two Royal Commissions. It may be of interest to your Lordships to remember that the first Commission which was appointed to inquire into Welsh Sunday closing was presided over by the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and in 1889 it unanimously recommended that Sunday closing should be extended to Monmouth. Ten years later the Licensing Commission, presided over by the late Lord Peel, also unanimously recommended the saint thing. The County Council of Monmouthshire, on more than one occasion, has passed resolutions in favour of this proposal, and only last week, with one dissentient voice, that County Council passed a resolution in favour of the inclusion of the county in Wales for all legislative purposes.

I will conclude with one personal reference, if I may be allowed to do so. I take a very special hereditary interest in the Welsh Sunday Closing Act, and I suppose I have had an experience somewhat unusual in the other place with reference to this proposal for the extension of Sunday closing to the County of Monmouth. I had the privilege of introducing a Bill for this purpose in the other place in twenty-one successive Parliamentary sessions, and your Lordships will appreciate my personal satisfaction that, at last, there seems to be every expectation that this proposal will find its way on to the Statute Book.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, it is a matter of common agreement, no doubt, with the whole House, that there could be no question of opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am one of the last people who would be likely to offer it opposition, because since I have had an opportunity of watching from the outside the work of the Control Board I have reached the conclusion that, for some time to come, the better line of advance for the regulation of our system of the sale of alcoholic drinks ought to proceed in the direction of limiting the hours of sale and of limiting the strength of the liquor supplied. Both these objects are sought in the Government Bill, with some modifications front what was considered necessary in war time, but with considerable and marked changes from what existed before 1914. Therefore, I welcome the provisions of the Bill in both those respects.

As the most rev. Primate has truly stated, this does not profess or pretend to be a final measure for the regulation of the drink traffic in the country; but he himself, I think, must admit that the passing of a measure of this kind, and the prolongation of the experiment in those two directions which I have indicated, are likely to defer for a time the attempt to enact what he describes as the larger dealing with the question. It may, I think, reasonably be said that it is desirable to see what the effect of the continuance of the restriction on hours and of alcoholic strength is for a little time longer, before proceeding to wider and larger schemes, whether those schemes take the shape of what I understand the most rev. Primate favours—an extension of the principle of Local Option,—or whether they take the shape of what it was understood that the Prime Minister was at one time so ardent an advocate—namely, that of the acquisition by the State of the whole industry of making and selling alcoholic drinks. It would be altogether out of place now to attempt to discuss the merits or demerits of either of those schemes.

The most rev. Primate alluded to the vivid speech which the noble and learned Viscount, who is not in his place on the Woolsack, made on this subject. I do not think that he went so far on that occasion as to deny the right of a majority to dictate locally to the minority in the same locality on a great number of subjects. What he did was, I take it, to express more than a doubt as to whether the sale of alcoholic drinks was one of the subjects on which the opinion of the majority ought to be allowed to preponderate. And I am bound to say that I think that is a matter requiring a closer investigation than it has hitherto received, and that it cannot be taken so far to be proved either one way or the other.

The only point in the Bill itself on which I might say one word is the extension of hours in favour of theatre-goers and the like. That, I think, met with some opposition in another place, on the ground that it was a form of class legislation, in that it gave a benefit to the well-to-do which was not conferred on the poorer classes in the country. I am afraid that cannot be disputed. I am afraid it is a discrimination in favour of the better-to-do classes. Whether it ought to be completely put aside on that ground I certainly, for one, am not prepared to assert. It seems to me that, as a matter of fact, it will meet the convenience of a great many very harmless people, even though they be well-to-do, and I do not suppose that it is therefore likely to be seriously objected to in your Lordships' House. But, of course, it cannot be disputed that in that matter, as in a great ninny other matters, the better-off classes have a series of advantages over those who are less well endowed, and I think it is simpler in this case frankly to admit it, and not to attempt to produce an artificial equality where the conditions themselves are unequal. On the whole, I am inclined to congratulate His Majesty's Government on the manner in which this Bill has been framed and dealt with in another place, and apart from the specific and local points, such as that mentioned by the noble Lord who has just sat down, it is not likely, should think, to receive any degree of hostile criticism in your Lordships' House.

LORD HARRIS

My Lords, I should like to make one observation, not so much about the Bill itself, but as regards tine very loose phraseology which is used about the Bill in the public Press and elsewhere. It is constantly referred to as a"closing movement." It is not a"closing movement." The Bill does not give any power to close a public house; it simply limits the hours during which intoxicating liquors may be sold. The experience of Justices during the war was, no doubt, the sane as mine—namely, that the publican assumed that he had the right, to close his house. Perhaps it did not matter very much during the war. The traffic on the roads was very much reduced, so far as the ordinary public was concerned. But now that the roads are in constant use I must deprecate the idea which is getting about that it is the right of the publican to close his house at all hours of the day. All that this Bill does is to limit his right to sell intoxicating liquors, and his licence is given to him on condition that he keeps his house open for the use of the public, not necessarily for the supply of intoxicating liquors, but that the public may get shelter as well as food and non-intoxicants during all reasonable hours of the day. It is just as well to call attention to that.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.