LICENSING (SEAMEN'S CANTEENS) BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 18 November 1953)

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD)
My Lords, although at first sight this Bill may appear slightly complicated, due to the fact that it is adapted from the licensing laws, it is in fact a simple measure, which I think has an admirable purpose—namely, to make permanent provision for the refreshment of our seamen. And when I tell your Lordships that it will, in addition, enable us to get rid of one more Defence Regulation, and in so doing will help to fill, in a better and more permanent way, a gap in the licensing law, I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is a measure which should find its way rapidly on to the Statute Book.
Defence Regulation 60AA, which will be revoked when the Bill comes into force, enables certain Ministers to authorise the sale of intoxicating liquor in canteens provided for civilian workers employed on essential work for certain Government Departments, for dock workers, or for seamen and fishermen. During the war it was used fairly freely to authorise the sale of liquor in canteens for industrial war workers. Since then, the number of industrial canteens concerned has greatly declined, until now, of the thirty-seven canteens still authorised under the Regulation, twenty-seen are for seamen. On this occasion, the Government do not wish to propose any permanent provision with regard to industrial canteens, and accordingly this Bill provides only for seamen's canteens. Some people may be surprised that any legislation should be necessary. They may well ask: Is not the existing licensing law enough? I think the answer to that lies in the fact that it was necessary to introduce the Defence Regulation during the war, which surely shows that there are cases for which the licensing law does not provide. There were a number of reasons for introducing that Regulation—for example, the need for expeditious action, which nowadays we need no longer take into account. But the principal reason why the Regulation was necessary was of a more permanent kind, and it is the 395 reason why this Bill is necessary to-day—namely, that the ordinary licensing law provides only for the sale of liquor to the general public, on the one hand, and the supply of liquor in clubs, on the other.
These seamen's canteens are, if I may say so, rather hybrid affairs. In some ways, they partake of the nature of clubs, but they are not clubs in the ordinary sense; nor would it be practicable to run them as clubs in accordance with the requirements of the licensing law about registered clubs. Let me give two examples of why that would not be practicable. Two of the grounds for striking a club off the register in England, under Section 144 of the Licensing Act, 1953, are that persons are habitually admitted as members without an interval of at least forty-eight hours between nomination and admission, and that the supply of liquor is not under the control of the members or of a committee appointed by the members. It is of the essence of these seamen's canteens that they should be open to all seamen without the formality of nomination and an interval of forty-eight hours before admission; and their constantly changing clientele would make it quite impossible for the supply of liquor to be under the control of the seamen using the canteen, or of a committee appointed by them. For reasons of this sort, the canteens could not be treated as clubs for the purposes of English licensing law; and the difficulties would be even greater in Scotland, where the law about registered clubs is stricter. On the other hand, the general public are not admitted to these canteens; they are in no sense public-houses, and it would be quite inappropriate to require them to be licensed as if they were. This is the gap in the licensing law to which I referred, and which the Bill is designed to fill, so far as seamen's canteens are concerned.
My Lords, I have been talking about "canteens," but perhaps in this context that is a slightly misleading expression. The Bill really relates to those places—many of them hostels which are very much like comfortable hotels—which are provided for the accommodation and entertainment of seamen in many of the principal ports, and the canteens are the part of the premises in which refreshments are supplied. I do not suppose that anyone who is familiar with these 396 hostels which have been established during and since the war by voluntary organisations concerned with seamen's welfare, and in particular the Merchant Navy Welfare Board, will need to be convinced of their merits or that they are deserving of special provision being made for them. Undoubtedly there is a proved need for these hostels and canteens. They are an essential part of the provision made for seamen's welfare; they serve the most admirable and useful purpose, and it would be fallacious to pretend that they could play their part fully and effectively unless they were authorised to supply liquor. They are as remote as possible from any old-fashioned idea of seamen's gin shops: on the contrary, the supply of liquor in them is, as it should be in any well-run club, purely an incidental amenity. The first purpose of the hostels and clubs is to provide food and a place where seamen can meet together, amuse themselves agreeably, eat and rest. The hostels also provide sleeping accommodation, the more modern hostels being equipped with married quarters. I need only add, in this connection, that experience has amply shown that the sale of liquor has led to no sort of abuses. On the contrary, I understand that the police welcome the provision of these canteens.
As regards the scheme of the Bill, we have not thought it right merely to make permanent the Defence Regulation. In war time, it was appropriate and justifiable to give the power of authorising the sale of liquor in canteens to the responsible Ministers. This arrangement, I think all your Lordships will agree, cuts right across the scheme of the ordinary licensing law, and we do not feel that it would be right to continue it in permanent legislation. Under the Bill, therefore, the licensing authority will not be a Minister but the same authority that grants licences for public-houses. The licensing authority's discretion, however, will not be so wide as it is under the ordinary licensing law. In the case of a public-house, the licensing authority has complete discretion to decide whether or not the licence is needed at all, what kinds of liquor the licence should allow to be sold, and the conditions which should be attached. In the case of seamen's canteens, we are inviting Parliament to decide, by passing this Bill, that suitable canteens ought to be licensed; and we 397 propose that the authority to decide how many there should be, and in which ports they should be, should not be the licensing authority, but, the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, because this cannot be viewed, in our opinion, purely as a local affair but must surely be treated on a national basis. The Bill, therefore, limits the right to apply for a licence to the managers of canteens provided by a body approved by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, and the need for which has been certified by him.
In giving his approval and certificate the Minister will seek the advice of the Merchant Navy Welfare Board. The Bill provides that where the Minister has given his approval and certified the need for the canteen, the licensing authority will not have its ordinary discretion to decide whether or not a licence is needed, but will be able to refuse a licence only on certain grounds—namely that the applicant is disqualified, or is not a fit and proper person, or that the premises are not fit and convenient. In addition, there will be a right to object to the precise situation of a canteen, and, if the licensing authority thinks the objection is well-founded, it will be able to refuse a licence on that ground. It will be for the licensing authority to decide whether the licence should be for all or only for some classes of liquor—whether it should include wines and spirits or only beer. Once a canteen has been licensed, it will remain under the control of the licensing authority in much the same way as a public-house. Thus, the licence will require annual renewal, and the licensing authority will be able to refuse renewal if it no longer considers the manager a fit and proper person to hold the licence, or if the canteen has not been properly conducted; and the licensing authority may require structural improvements to be made.
I have been speaking so far of new canteens that may be set up. So far as seamen's canteens which already exist, and which have authority to sell liquor under Regulation 60AA, are concerned, we feel that these canteens are entitled to rather special consideration, and the Bill, in effect, treats them as if they were already licensed, and their licence merely required renewal. In other words, the licensing authority would be able to refuse a licence only if the manager were 398 not a fit and proper person, or if the canteen had not been properly conducted.
The Bill provides that the permitted hours for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor in a licensed canteen shall be the same as those fixed for licensed premises in the district. There is, however, an exception as regards Sundays in Scotland, Wales and Mon-mouth shire. Under existing law, public-houses are not allowed to open at all on Sundays in Scotland, Wales and Monmouth shire; but hotels, of course, can supply residents at any time, and clubs can supply liquor for up to five hours. Though most of these canteens are in residential hostels, the Bill does not authorise liquor to be supplied in them at all hours on Sundays; it applies the rule for clubs and allows the sale of liquor on Sundays for up to five hours only—the choice of hours to be within the limits laid down for clubs and to be approved by the licensing authority. I think there are sound reasons for not applying the public-house rule. In the first place, seamen's canteens in Scotland, Wales and Monmouth shire, in which the sale of liquor is authorised under Regulation 60AA, are at present permitted to sell liquor on Sundays. In the second place, it seems to us that canteens, once again, are akin to clubs rather than to public-houses, and that it is fair and reasonable to allow them the same privilege as clubs. There is the further consideration—and this I think is rather important—that ships arrive and sail, irrespective of the day of the week.
The Bill prohibits the sale of liquor in a licensed canteen for consumption off the premises, and it applies to licensed canteens all appropriate provisions of the general licensing law concerning the proper conduct of licensed premises and related matters. In particular—and this perhaps is also an important point—the police will have the same right of entry as they have in respect of public-houses. Furthermore, the provisions of the licensing law as regards drunkenness and sale to young persons will also apply. As I have already said, the Bill itself is perhaps rather more complicated in appearance than one would have wished it to be. But that is because the licensing law, from which it is adapted and many of the provisions of which it applies, is a complicated measure. Apart from this, I do not think I need apologise in any 399 way for the Bill. We feel that it is a well-balanced measure which, on the one hand, provides suitably for these essential canteens and, on the other, restores to the local licensing authorities an effective measure of control. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome this Bill, if only for the reason that it makes permanent one more regulation which hitherto has been temporary and has had to be approved from year to year. I must confess to your Lordships that I have had very little time in which to study this Bill, but certain points did occur to me as the noble Lord was explaining it. In the first place, I am not yet satisfied that there is a need for treating these canteens differently from any other licensed houses. In the normal way, as the noble Lord is aware, it is for the licensing authorities to be satisfied not only as to the character of the premises and the other requirements set out in the Bill, but also that the premises are necessary in the area concerned. In the Bill, that is left to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. It seems to me that that is a burden which it is not really proper for him to bear. He must have regard to other conditions, to the facilities that are available in the area, apart from these canteens, for obtaining intoxicating liquor. For instance, to take an extreme case, if there were half a dozen sets of similar premises within easy reach, it surely should not be for him to say whether there is a need. It seems to me that it would be much more appropriate for the licensing justices to say whether or not there is a need.
The noble Lord has said that it is the intention that these premises shall be not merely places for drinking but also hostels, places where seamen can come in and rest after an arduous voyage. But there is nothing in the Bill which lays down that such facilities should be provided. So far as this Bill is concerned, we are dealing with one more public-house. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell the House how we can ensure under this Bill, or any other legislation, that the admirable facilities which he describes, and which we 400 all regard as being desirable for the benefit of the seaman, will, in fact, be provided. What safeguard is there under this Bill in the case of a place that starts as a canteen, providing food as well as drink, but then gradually gives up the food and continues the drink? So far as I can see, there is no safeguard at all. The premises may simply become one more public-house. If that is the case, it reinforces the first point that I made, that these canteens should be under the control and jurisdiction of the licensing justices in the ordinary way.
There is one other point I should like to make—I approach it with some diffidence. The noble Lord said that seamen arrive on any day of the week. I would add, and at any time of the day. I should think the fact that these premises are not clubs, of which the noble Lord made such a virtue, is rather a defect. If a seaman happens to arrive five minutes after normal closing time, it seems hard that he should be deprived of a drink when he may be very much in need of one. From that point of view, it seems to be more appropriate that in these canteens (they are to be canteens, and will, presumably, be run by responsible bodies approved by the Ministry and, therefore, reputably run) there should be no such restriction as normally obtains on licensed premises. It is obvious from what I have said that this Bill will require close scrutiny in the course of its further stages. I do not think that any of the points I have raised are points of principle; they are points which can be dealt with at a later stage. In principle, we approve the Bill and agree to its being given a Second Reading.

LORD LLOYD
My Lords, I cannot share the noble Lord's apprehensions that these canteens might become ordinary public houses, if for no other reason than that the general public are not allowed into them, as I said in my speech. Therefore, I do not think that from the point of view of licensing they can be treated in exactly the same way as ordinary public houses. The noble Lord said that the licensing authority should have complete jurisdiction over these canteens, which would include the fixing of the number of public houses and canteens in the neighbourhood. I would say, without any disrespect to the licensing justices, that I cannot accept the 401 suggestion that they are the right body to do that. These are specialised hostels catering for a special class of people. The noble Lord himself admitted that seamen were not as others and came and went at curious hours. The danger is that, if the whole scheme were put in the hands of the licensing justices, the special problems of seamen might not be given sufficient consideration. The main advisers of the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on this matter are the Merchant Navy Welfare Board. I think that their advice will do much to allay the noble Lord's fear that these canteens may be turned into public houses. This is not an entirely new experiment. These hostels were in exist- 402 ence during the war and have been since. They have proved to be admirable institutions in every way and have really catered for a special need. In the light of the experience we have had of these hostels, I think the noble Lord's fears are perhaps unfounded. As regards the noble Lord's point about hours, I will certainly consider that before Committee stage, together with the other points he has raised.