§ 5.10 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Craigton.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
§ Clause 16 [Police inspection of clubs]:
§ VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to leave out Clause 16. The noble Viscount said: Throughout the course of the Committee stage on Tuesday there were two threads which ran through the burden of my noble friend Lord Craigton's song. One of them was that, unless the circumstances made it inescapable, we should not depart from the recommendations of the Committee presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest. The other was—again, unless it was inescapable—that provisions north of the Border should be similar to those south of it. In the case of Clause 16 these two principles come inevitably into conflict 461 because, on the one hand, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, and his Committee reported that the provisions which are contained in this clause should be the law in Scotland, whereas during the progress of the Licensing Bill before your Lordships in the last Session such a step was categorically rejected in England and Wales.
§
That rejection came in the face of an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. The noble Lord, from his great experience of the seamiest side of the underworld, referred with great fervour to the deplorable state of some of the clubs which he knew and in the areas with which he is familiar; and to judge by what he has said those clubs were to be deplored very much indeed. Yet when he moved that the police should have the power of entry which is now proposed in this clause for Scotland, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor spoke the words which were quoted to your Lordships on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. He said, if I may quote a very brief sentence [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 233 (No. 11 I), col. 628]:
The vast majority of opinion of all Parties accepts that to allow the police to enter club premises without warrant at any time, except for the limited purpose covered by Clause 27 of the Bill, would be an unjustifiable interference with private liberties.
Those are strong words. And when the matter was debated on Second Reading in your Lordships' House the only excuse that my noble friend Lord Craigton could find for this remarkable difference which has now come about in less than six months—that the Government are proposing to impose upon Scotland this "unjustifiable interference with private liberties"—was that, as noble Lords know, England is England, and Scotland is Scotland, and what is right for one is not necessarily Tight for the other. Well, I understood that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was a Scotsman, and proud to be a Scotsman, and if his opinion of what is an unjustifiable interference is not to be attended to, I do not know whose is. I think that to-day we want a very considerably more amplified explanation from my noble friend on the Front Bench than that which he gave on Second Reading to the effect that this is simply, as it were, a technical matter and he had not yet gone into the merits of whether such
462
entry is, or is not, an unjustifiable interference.
§ Your Lordships can all form your own opinions upon this subject and I have no doubt that there are clubs in Scotland which certainly require a great deal more supervision than can be given by the law as it stands to-day. But are those clubs so much worse than those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that this is a measure which can be justified in Scotland on that ground alone, whereas it must be categorically rejected in England? I do not believe that to be the case, and I certainly have no reason to suppose that the Guest Committee had evidence before it to show that to be the case. Such being the facts, I consider that the noble Lord has a lot to answer to your Lordships this afternoon. I should very much like to hear how he justifies this amazing departure from the attitude of Her Majesty's Government so short a time ago, and if this step is to be introduced I cannot see how it can justifiably be done in this Bill while England remains free from the restriction. I therefore beg your Lordships to support me this afternoon in striking out this unwarrantable interference with the freedom of people in Scotland and to support me in having this clause left out of the Bill. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 16.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON)Though I still think that Scotland is Scotland and England is England, I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to state briefly the reasons why Clause 16 is in the Bill. But I must make it quite clear to your Lordships that I do not consider I should come to any final conclusion until I have heard the views of your Lordships. The Government did not lightly accept the recommendation that the police should have the power of entry without warrant into clubs. They recognise that this is to some extent an interference with private rights. It is not, however, a new principle which they are applying. It is inherent in the present licensing laws that, if those parts of the law which control the supply of liquor to the public are to be enforced and enforceable, then there must be 463 control of the clubs which supply liquor to their members.
I am sure the noble Viscount would agree that the law must, as it does, prevent loosely organised clubs, which supply drink and of which anyone found in them can claim to be a member, from evading all the restrictions on supply. This is the basic purpose of the present law relating to registered clubs. The Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Guest, have found that the present law is being abused, but that this is not a defect in club law itself but in the arrangements for its enforcement. The Government are satisfied that it is very difficult for the police to spare the manpower for the enforcement of the law as it at present stands—for the long watch over the premises to get the prime facie evidence necessary; the applying for a warrant; and then the police raid. The right remedy appears to the Government to be the one suggested by the Committee.
Although, as I said on Second Reading, the police would, I am sure, act in a tactful manner, I do not for one moment suggest that the provision is one that all clubs would welcome. But there are circumstances in which the power would be welcomed by the club. Every club secretary has experienced the difficult situation in which members, despite his protests, break the law—ignoring permitted hours, getting drunk, and so on. Often the police, when they discover breaches of the law, find the committee and the secretary are genuinely anxious to see the law observed, but they cannot control the offenders. There is no alternative, if the abuse continues, but to apply the full rigour of the law. Then follows the police raid, with all its attendant publicity. In such cases it would have been better avoid all this trouble, expense and publicity, and that police powers should have been used to nip the abuse in the bud.
Although similar proposals for England and Wales were adversely received, the Guest Committee's recommendation on this subject has been singled out for a particularly warm welcome in Scotland, and received support on Second Reading from four Members on both sides of your Lordships' House—my 464 noble friends Lord Haddington and Lord Ferrier and the noble Lords, Lord Hughes and Lord Stonham. In view of these facts, I am convinced that the Government are right in including Clause 16 in the Bill, but I will now listen most carefully to your Lordships' views.
§ VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORNI listened with great interest to my noble friend the Minister of State, and I am still unconvinced that Clause 16 should remain in the Bill. I feel very strongly about this, as I warned my noble friend two days ago. I heard what he said about England being England and Scotland being Scotland, but he did not go on to say that never the twain shall meet. On this occasion the twain will meet, because England and Scotland can get together, I hope, in opposing Clause 16. I am also in grave doubt—not convinced, but in grave doubt—whether the police want these powers. It only makes them unpopular to go barging, unwanted, into other people's premises. Where they know there is bad behaviour or bad management, let them get a warrant and go and do their duty. I know we are told, as a sort of soporific, that the police will not bother you unless they have to, but I object to their being given these overriding powers. They have not got them in England. I regard it as an indignity that Scotland should be saddled with them.
I do not know whether any learned gentleman present will correct me, but I maintain that the members of a club own the furnishings, and they own the food and bottled refreshments; it is their property and therefore they should be entitled to consume it without police interference. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected, but that is my view. On this question—which I applaud in many respects—of sticking to the recommendations of the Guest Committee, of course, the Government have already made a hole in their own case by departing from the recommendations of the Guest Committee in other respects, so really that argument no longer holds water. That is the Government's own fault, not mine. I object seriously to retaining Clause 16 in the Bill, and I shall want a great deal of convincing before I hold a contrary view.
§ LORD STRATHCLYDEI should like to support the cogent arguments put forward by the noble Viscount and also by my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn. I would put some further considerations before your Lordships. We have had the view of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, on this matter in so far as England is concerned. I think it is extremely strange that a Party one of whose principles is to maintain our ancient institutions should move in this direction; I just do not understand it. After all, the clubs of our country are institutions which I believe are worthy of support. There are different kinds of clubs. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, talked about loosely organised clubs, and the kind of clubs that he was speaking about were clubs with which some of us have little or no acquaintance. I think that clubs fall into three different categories: there is the residential club; the social club, bridge club and that kind of thing; and then there is the drinking club which masquerades as some kind of social club. If the law is being abused in certain of these clubs, then let the legislation be applied to them; but why rope in every club and put them under the same restrictions? That does not seem to be altogether fair or indeed to be altogether reasonable.
I do not know that I want the law of Scotland always to be similar to the law of England. The reason is that I consider the law of Scotland immensely superior to the law of England. I have no objection at all to bringing the law of England into line with the law of Scotland, but there are exceptions to that general rule, and, in my opinion, this is one of them. It is a matter of grave inconvenience to those of us who have to visit England arid who are members of English clubs to find that when we are here we are free of all interference, and then when we arrive back in our native country anti go to the club we may find a gentleman in blue standing on the front doorstep. That might be bad for our nervous systems and it is something to which we should not be subjected. I cannot find any good reason for the introduction of this provision by the Government, and I hope your Lordships will support the Amendment and reject the clause.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEI should like to support the Amendment. I was fascinated by the speech of the Minister of State, which was really a Second Reading speech in favour of a provision which is not contained in the Bill for England. The noble Lord said that this was most warmly received in Scotland. I can assure him it is going to be most warmly received in your Lordships' House if he persists in his effort. The arguments have been well put already. There is only one further point I would suggest. The club, to many unmarried men, is in fact the home, the social centre. It may well be the same for some unfortunate married men, but that is not the particular point I am trying to put. For many men who are not married it is their home, and this is a proposal that there should be a right of entry into what is in effect their home.
In this age of restriction, direction, permits and control, it is indeed a retrograde step for a Conservative Government to come forward with such a proposal as is contained in Clause 16. The recommendations of the Guest Committee have not been followed right through, and therefore the argument that this is a Guest Committee proposal is not really a sound one. Apart from that, I can think of no other reason for this differentiation between Scotland and England, except that a predominantly English Cabinet wished to take revenge on Scotland for thirty years of moral, commercial and educational superiority, and I trust your Lordships will not allow that to happen.
§ LORD LINDGRENThe Minister seems not to be getting very much support from his own friends. I hope it will not embarrass him if I come to his aid now. The club that is well run, the club that has nothing to hide, does not worry about the possibility of police visits. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in the debate on Tuesday informed me that some pubs in Scotland were not all they ought to be. I do not doubt that there are some clubs in Scotland that are not all they ought to he. It is the provision of such regulations as this which gives the police easy opportunity to check excesses and abuses of the privilege which a club licence gives. I say this as a member of a club which is 467 affiliated to the English Club and Institute Union. I was one of those who argued for such a clause to be inserted in the English Bill.
I think it was a tragedy that the wartime Regulation 55C, which worked extremely well, was ever repealed. Whatever noble Lords may say about club members, it is not only they who have to be considered, but those who have the responsibility of running clubs—I refer to the stewards and stewardesses. On many occasions, in working men's clubs in England (of course, I cannot speak for Scotland) stewards have said to me, "I have one of the most difficult of jobs. I do not have one boss; I have a committee of twelve. They all think they are 'the boss' and they all sometimes want preferential treatment. If we had Regulation 55C I could always turn to a club member who wanted me to transgress licensing hours and say, 'This is my job. I do not want to risk my good name and association with the Club and Institute movement'." Regulation 55C went, and of course with it went protection for the steward or stewardess against club members, or committee-men in particular, who wish, I will not say to break the law, but badly to bend it. The club which is well run has nothing to fear. If the good class hotel is open to police inspection, if the good class pub is open to police inspection, what has the club to fear or to hide?
I know from my own experience of the British Club and Institute Union that the affiliated clubs are extremely well run. Although they are opposed to this proposal—I think they are perhaps a little jealous of the fact that they have some privilege over others—I think everybody ought to be on the same level. There is a feeling among some folk that the licensed trade is—I was going to say an evil trade. They think that the result of drinking is evil to the community. Then let us have everybody, the pub and the club, on the same level. Where there may be abuse the police would have the right to go in and check that abuse. If that is done there will not be, as there sometimes now is, whispering behind the scenes about the goings on at this or that club, whether it be a working men's, a Conservative or a golf club. I am in favour of Clause 16, and if 468 it comes to a Division I shall support the Government.
§ LORD AUCKLANDDuring the course of the Second Reading debate on this Bill I gave qualified support to this clause, but having re-read the clause, and having heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, I find myself utterly convinced that it is a bad clause. Clause 16 empowers a constable to enter club premises. That may mean a young policeman of nineteen or twenty who has had little experience of life in general, and certainly little experience of clubs. If the clause were worded so that policemen of the rank of inspector or above were allowed to enter in extenuating circumstances, then there might be some reason for supporting this Amendment.
The other point I should like to make is that most of these clubs have as members people from all classes of society. I am a member of a men's club in Epsom, where I live, the members of which comprise people ranging from managing directors to jockeys. It is a well-conducted club; everybody is extremely friendly, and I am quite certain that the last thing that the steward would want would be police interference. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has made a most convincing case for his Amendment, and I, for one, will support it.
§ LORD FERRIERHad it not been for the Minister of State's saying that he would perhaps reconsider this clause, and would be interested to hear what the Committee have to say on the matter, I should not have taken up your Lordships' time. But I feel without in any way disagreeing with the noble Viscount in what he or those who have supported him have said, that the clause as it stands is not a good clause at all. I agree, as I said not only in Second Reading but on Tuesday last, that one of the effects of this Bill may be a more rapid increase in the number of clubs which are designed, as one of your Lordships said, to operate as third-class clubs, loosely got together, for drinking only. I can understand the wish of the Government to have some power in regard to their compliance with the law. It occurs to me that it might help if the Government were to consider another method of approaching 469 the matter—namely, to give the police powers to enter clubs, whatever they may be (whether golf, residential or drinking clubs) during licensed hours or, say, half an hour either side.
§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARDI find myself in the rather unusual situation of being in agreement with the noble Lord opposite. I really think that, as he said, no properly constituted club has anything whatsoever to fear. I feel that the police to-day have an increasingly hard time to maintain order, and I personally am in favour of assisting them in all possible ways. I once had the misfortune to be stationed in Glasgow, at the extremely unpleasant barracks called Maryhill. I have some unpleasant recollections of some of the clubs round that area. Perhaps things have changed since then. But I cannot understand the great objection to this clause. I quite agree that if any St. James's Street clubs were entered by the police we should be naturally much annoyed; but the police have no reason to enter those clubs. In these matters the police are most tactful. They enter a club only if they have good reason to suppose that there is something going on that ought not to be going on. Therefore, I cannot support this Amendment.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMight I ask my noble friend whether he would apply that argument to England?
§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARDUnfortunately, I came in after by noble friend's argument was deployed. Obviously, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is going to explain to us—perhaps he has already—why we do not apply it in England. Obviously, the Government have a good reason for its not being applied in England.
§ LORD LINDGRENThe reason why it is not applied in England is pretty obvious: it is pressure, particularly from the political clubs who wish to avoid the possibility of police inspection. It is only in surrender to the pressure of the political clubs in England that this clause is not in the English Bill.
§ LORD HUGHESI indicated on Second Reading that this was one part of the Bill in regard to which I should find myself in agreement with the Government. The Minister has been supported 470 so little on his own side of the House, that I am not at all sure that he will find it helpful to have a small measure of support from myself on this side of the House, but I will try to justify this support, on perhaps sounder grounds than the noble Lord who has just sat down, because he has been reinforced merely by the simple faith that, if the Government do it, then it must be right. I do not have that consolation. But I should also like to say that he must agree that he was much luckier than I was when he was in Maryhill Barracks. My first six weeks in the Army were spent there, and I can assure him that during that period they never gave me any time to find out if there were any clubs in Glasgow. But perhaps I was fortunate in that respect.
Speaking seriously, my Lords, I do not think that the clause merits all the attacks which it has received from noble Lords opposite. It has been made quite clear—and I think it could not have been put better than it was put by Lord Strathclyde and by Lord Balfour of Inchrye—that there are different categories of clubs and some of these do not require any supervision or police intervention of this kind. On Tuesday, the Minister of State said that he did not think this Bill would result in an increase in the number of clubs which were got together merely for the purpose of providing drinking facilities. With that point of view the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has again disagreed, and I am afraid that it is my opinion that in the long run, if the Bill goes through in its present form, Lord Ferrier is more likely to be right in this matter than is Lord Craigton. If that proves to be the case, then, obviously, there will be a need for greater powers than the police have under the status quo, because it is almost impossible to bring an unsatisfactory situation to an end with the procedure that must be followed at the present time.
It may be that Clause 16, as it stands, is not necessarily the right answer to that situation, and I should be very much surprised if, when the Minister replies, he does not feel himself obliged to say that he will have another look at this matter. If he does not, then he is going to run the risk of having nothing at all to consider. But I think it would be equally wrong to take the clause out 471 without being prepared to put something else in its place. As we stand this afternoon, there is no suggestion of amending the present law to make it satisfactory, either for the situation which exists at the present time in relation to some of these so-called social clubs, or for the situation which may arise if this Bill becomes law. If nothing is in the Bill, then it will undoubtedly not be satisfactory for Scotland.
While I wish to support the Minister on this matter, I obviously cannot give him completely unqualified support, because I disagree fundamentally with many of the reasons for which he does particular things, even though I arrive at the same destination. Certainly, I cannot work it out on the basis that "England is England and Scotland is Scotland", or that the Guest Committee recommended it or did not recommend it. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, earlier in the day, I do not know how he can possibly remember where he is in the Guest Committee's Report, because he keeps turning somersaults on it, at one moment accepting what the Committee are recommending and the next opposing what the Committee are recommending. If I cannot commend him for anything else, I can certainly commend him for a most excellent memory.
But in this case I think the answer lies in altogether another clause in the Bill. If the Minister followed the main recommendations of the Guest Committee regarding public houses, then the clubs need have no future terrors for the Government in Scotland. Similarly with Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, is moving later on, the main problem arises from a continuation of the Government's policy of refusing to open the public houses on Sundays. I do not know yet what I intend to do at the next stage, but it may be that I will furnish your Lordships with a solution to this problem and the other one by moving either the same Amendment as I moved on Tuesday, or something else which accepts—if I may quote, without risk of retort, the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn—that this would be a case where the right thing is that England is England and Scotland is Scotland, yet the twain must meet.
472 I certainly hope that the Minister does not succumb at this stage to the very considerable pressure which has been put upon him by those whom he is normally accustomed to describe as his noble friends, even though they are being quite unfriendly in their support to-day. But if he does feel constrained to do something about it, he should not go further than a promise to examine the situation, to find out whether he can accomplish the necessary object in relation to the social or drinking clubs in another way. But if this is the only way in which he can control these other undesirable aspects, then he ought in the last analysis to stick to Clause 16 as it stands. It certainly is better than the present completely unsatisfactory situation.
§ LORD CRAIGTONMy Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord who has just sat down. In fact, in this matter I am grateful for support from any quarter at all. But it has been a valuable debate, and I wrote in my notes before standing up that I appreciated that this was a question on which strong views were held. I think that would be not overstressing the case. Before I make a general reply, I should like to deal with two points. Why it is that my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn always raises these points, I do not know. He said that he doubted whether the police would welcome this power. I do not know what grounds my noble friend has for making that suggestion, because I understand that before the Guest Committee the police expressed their strong dissatisfaction about the present position, under which their only power of entry into a badly run club is by a warrant, with all the difficulties that that involves. One other point made by my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn was that in a club the members owned the drinks and so on, and the club was virtually the members' home. He was wrong, because in a proprietary club the members do not own the drinks and, in any club, whether it is their property or not, they are controlled as to the hours in which they can drink. The club is not, in that respect, accommodation which is akin to their home, as he implied.
Surely your Lordships must feel, as the Government feel, that, in the face of the very substantial evidence that the 473 present situation is unsatisfactory, we should all be wrong to make no effort at all to ensure that the enforcement of the law was made more effective. I am sure that my noble friends would go with me as far as that. We realise that there is substantial opposition to the clause as it stands. My noble friend Lord Ferrier made some constructive suggestions which should be carefully considered. I must say to my other noble friends that I have seldom listened to a debate in which noble Lords had so few constructive suggestions to make, except that they just did not like the clause and thought it ought to be different. But what we should really be trying to think of for Scotland is how clubs ought to be controlled.
Your Lordships will be glad to know that we have given further consideration to this difficult question. What I would ask of your Lordships is not to resolve the question to-day, but to give the Government time for further study. If the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment, I will undertake that we will re-open the whole question and will have discussions with the chief constables and other interested persons. As your Lordships will understand, I can make no promises. There is clearly no easy solution, but if a way out can be found we will put clown Amendments on Report, when your Lordships will still be free, of course, as you are to-day, to take whatever action you think fit.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSI think your Lordships have succeeded in mollifying my noble friend to a most admirable degree. The cardinal point that has arisen from your Lordships' debate, I think, is the admission by the noble Lord Lord Hughes, that there are certain clubs which do not require supervision, and I beg the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, to make that the cornerstone of his considerations when he comes to go further into this matter. I am delighted that he has said he will do so, and I shall look forward with great pleasure to seeing what the results of these deliberations may be. If the noble Lord can find some way of reducing at any rate the degree of this interference, then I think your Lordships may well be satisfied. It is not that any of your Lordships would doubt the tact and the good manners of the 474 police in Scotland; nor that you would wish evasion to go undetected or unpunished. None the less, there is a widespread fear at the moment that this clause as it stands would be an unjustified interference. I will therefore accede to the noble Lord's suggestion and will withdraw this Amendment, at any rate at this stage.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 16 agreed to.
§ 5.52 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after Clause 16, to insert the following new clause:
§ Amendment of s. 171 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959
§ "In section one hundred and seventy-one of the principal Act (which provides for the procedure on application for grant or renewal of certificate of registration of a club), at the end of subsection (1), there shall be inserted the words ' and the registrar shall require the applicant to advertise a notice giving concise particulars of the application in two newspapers circulating in the locality of the club. The advertisement so published shall contain the information required by Part I of the Fourth Schedule to the principal Act, and shall be inserted on at least two occasions, the last being at least ten days before the grant or hearing by the sheriff of the application'."
§ The noble Viscount said: There seems to me to be a gap, yet another gap, in the law regarding clubs and the restraints that are to be put upon them. Section 171 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959, allows certain people to object to the granting or the renewal of a certificate of registration of a club. Among the people who can object are the chief constable, the town council or the district council. Further, there is provision by which the procurator fiscal can object; and so can any person owning or occupying premises in the neighbourhood of the premises occupied by the club. This is in line with the provisions by which people can abject to the issue of a public house licence. The gap, however, exists in this respect. Whereas the chief constable, the town council or the district council are by statutory requirement notified of the application for the grant or renewal of a certificate, the person who occupies adjoining property is not; and, so far as I know, there is no method by which he can find out that a club is going to be opened up next door to him or within whatever the limit is to the term "adjoining property".
475§ It may very well be that he is the person who has the best possible grounds for objecting to the opening up of a club. This is not a Scottish case, but I remember that when I lived in South Kensington a club opened up not very far away. I wished then that I had become aware in time of the fact that this was going to occur, because I would have objected very strongly, as I did afterwards.
§ My Amendment is an attempt, at any rate, even if it is technically inaccurate, to provide that the person who occupies adjoining premises will have at least some chance of finding out that a certificate is being applied for, because if this Amendment were to be accepted the application would have to be advertised in the newspapers at a certain stated time before the application was made. This, I believe, would give the adjoining owner a chance to make an objection in the proper way, and so to safeguard his rights and perhaps the peace and quiet of his house. I therefore beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.]
§ LORD CRAIGTONOn its merits, this Amendment has something to be said for it, but not very much. The provisions which it amends are of long standing, dating originally from 1903 and last revised in 1913; so this could not be said to be a matter of urgency. It is true that under the 1959 Act only the chief constable and the local authority are informed by the sheriff clerk of the application, so that, as the noble Viscount has said, without newspaper advertisement, anyone owning property in the neighbourhood who is entitled to object at the time of the application may not learn of the application in time.
But under Section 175 of the Act a competent objector can raise an objection at any time, and if it is found proved, then the sheriff has discretion to cancel the club's registration. So, on its merits, this Amendment would do no more than give the potential objecting householder the opportunity to object a little sooner to the first application. Application for renewal would not be affected, as the objector, with or without this Amendment, would not have to wait for the renewal date before lodging his 476 objection. The noble Viscount follows me so far?
§ LORD CRAIGTONBut there is another very valid reason for asking your Lordships not to accept this Amendment. This is not a Bill about Scottish club registration law, which has at least stood the test for a very long time and which cannot be said to be in urgent need of revision. This is a Bill, much overdue, mainly to deal with Sunday drinking and permitted hours. It does not attempt any general revision of the licensing law, and it would be inappropriate to do that while the Guest Committee are still sitting. Nevertheless, as it stands, even though it is narrow, the Bill is substantial and controversial. Whatever individual views may be on some aspects of the Bill—and we had them on the previous Amendment—I think we all want to see the Bill on the Statute Book.
But parliament has other important Scottish legislation to consider, which is starting on its journey in another place. We in the Government could have widened the scope of this Bill, but we exercised a self-denying ordinance in order to keep the Bill short, limiting its contents to matters of urgency. I would humbly ask your Lordships to help us by not opening up a new avenue of discussion by approving this Amendment—an Amendment which, in some form or another, could have been made at any time in the last 50 years. On those grounds, and not because the point made is not a valid one, I would beg the noble Viscount to see his way to withdrawing his Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSIf it has not been made at any time in the last 50 years, it has at least been made now. I wonder whether my noble friend could tell me whether he has some sort of list in his Department on which he puts down this sort of point, to be taken into account when he comes to drafting the next Licensing (Scotland) Bill on a wider basis. If this point can be registered, at any rate, as being something that should be looked at, and if it may perhaps see the light of day in later legislation, then I think the desired end might have been achieved.
§ LORD CRAIGTONAs my noble friend Lord Strathclyde knows, there are lists and lists of points such as this awaiting a suitable legislative vehicle, and I can assure the noble Viscount that this point also will go on the appropriate list.
§ LORD HUGHESAnd if it takes its appropriate place on the list, it may well be 50 years before it is the noble Viscount's turn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSIf Her Majesty's Government think it is really going to be a clog in the works, 1 have no option but to beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 6.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSThis is a small point, but one, I think, really covered by the scope of the Bill. We have already had discussions in your Lordships' Committee about the age at which people ought to be allowed to take liquor away from a shop to which they have been sent as messengers to buy it. My noble friend Lord Craigton was convinced that 18 was the minimum age at which they should be allowed to do this. Such being the case, it astonishes me that there is still no provision in the law of Scotland which prevents anyone under the age of 18 from serving in a bar, or at any rate in a club where intoxicating liquor is sold. Of course, anyone under the age of 18 cannot do so in a public house, yet there is no restriction of this nature at all in a club, and it was in order to try to fill this gap that I put down this Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16 insert the following new clause:
§ Persons under eighteen not to be employed in registered clubs
§ (". The provisions of section one hundred and forty-four of the principal Act (which provides that persons under eighteen shall not be employed in bars or licensed canteens) shall, subject to any necessary modifications, apply and have effect as if registered clubs had been included therein.")—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
§ LORD CRAIGTONI am afraid that I must start by telling my noble friend that I am advised that his Amendment, 478 as it stands, is ambiguous, and on that ground alone cannot be accepted. Section 144 of the principal Act makes it illegal to employ persons under 18—and this is the provision which he seeks to amend—in the bar of licensed premises (that is, in part of the premises) or in a canteen (that is, the whole premises). It is not clear from the Amendment whether the illegality would consist in the employment of an under-eighteen in the club premises as a whole, or in only the part of the club where drinks are served. As the noble Viscount refers to registered clubs and not to the premises of registered clubs, the assumption is that his Amendment will probably make it an offence for any club to employ a person under 18. That rules out golf clubs with caddies and green-keeping staff under 18 years of age, and young gardeners, where the club has grounds. If it is only on the club premises that under-eighteens are not to be employed, that still rules out pages and boots. If the Amendment seeks to prevent under-eighteens from serving drinks, it is virtually impossible satisfactorily to define that part of the club where drinks could not be served by under-eighteens.
§ LORD CRAIGTONLet me finish. We are by no means unsympathetic to the intention behind this Amendment, and it may be possible to find a form of words which simply prohibits persons under 18 from being employed for supplying and serving drinks in clubs. If my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment, I make no promise, but I will look most carefully at this matter before the next stage.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSI am very much obliged to my noble friend. That seems to me entirely satisfactory, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 17 agreed to.
§ 6.3 p.m.
§ LORD FERRIER moved, after Clause 17, to insert the following new clause:
§ Restriction on carrying exciseable liquor in public service vehicles and private hire motor buses
§ ". If any person carries or causes or permits to be carried on any public service vehicle 479 used as a contract carriage or on any private hire motor vehicle chartered for a private party exciseable liquor for consumption by the passengers (except such as may be carried by individual passengers for their private requirements) shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction thereof be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds."
§ The noble Lord said: The Sunday "boozing bus party" of "bôna-fide" travellers is one feature of the way of life in Scotland to-day which is a disgrace. I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading, but I will go on to say that, as I know your Lordships are aware, this objectionable practice springs from the present state of the law, which this Bill is designed to alter. The Guest Committee referred to this evil in their Report, in Paragraphs 42 to 46. They did so in restrained terms, but I imagine I am not alone in the experiences which I have had, one of which I will describe.
§ I was returning to St. Andrews on a lovely summer afternoon by car with my wife and youngest daughter, who was then a schoolgirl, and on a quiet country road we came upon two buses standing by the roadside surrounded by the passengers, who were in various stages of intoxication. One was being sick in a ditch, and two others were relieving themselves otherwise on the road. Others were reeling about with bottles in their hands. The liquor was coming from cases in the open boot of the vehicle. Now, this sort of thing happens all over Scotland, despite what the Guest Committee said. They said "in various parts of Scotland", but it happens all too widely in Scotland on summer Sundays. It is an offence to all decent people, besides, of course, being an offence in law—but I shall refer to that aspect later. As the Guest Committee reported, it has become a "firm habit"—they are the two words I would quote from the Report; but it is a regular practice, call it what you will. A police sergeant once said a surprising thing to me when I asked him how things were going. He said: "Oh, we are getting ready for the drunken bus season ", which was his description of the summer.
§
Such conduct as I have described admittedly is disorderly, but it occurs
480
in remote places and at irregular times, so that the police cannot be expected to protect the public or to carry out their task of bringing disorderly scenes to a stop. In any case, as I shall show, on Sundays they are busily engaged in the villages, burghs, and country towns, dealing with the same problem of excessive drinking in the high streets. Recognising this position, the Guest Committee went on to say, in paragraph 46 of their Report:
It seems to us, however, that it would be practicable, and certainly desirable, to devise measures which … would nevertheless check the grosser abuses which occur on Sundays and to a lesser extent on week-days. With that object in view we recommend that it should be an offence to consume liquor on any public service vehicle: and that it should be an offence for the proprietor knowingly or by the hand of his servant to carry liquor in quantity, for example in crates, in a public service vehicle used as a contract carriage.
This Bill, thank goodness, abolishes the "bôna fide traveller", but this very fact—and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, made this point, not only to-day but on Tuesday and on Second Reading—may increase the tendency to carry liquor in buses.
§ My Amendment, which I may say has been drafted on legal advice by the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, is an honest attempt to go part of the way to meet these difficulties. I say "part of the way", and I emphasise "part of the way" because it expressly accepts the right of the individual to carry his own refreshment on him, even as his baggage. I think it is notorious that part of a Scotsman's luggage often is corked. Let us accept that. But this sort of thing needs careful organisation. What I mean is this. For a party to set off in a bus with their pockets full of bottles, or with suitcases or haversacks packed with bottles, means organisation at the start. It is not easy to arrange, because one must remember that many of these buses pick up passengers from door to door and from road-end to road-end.
§ What is more, it is an open secret—indeed, it is obvious—that the organisers of bus parties arrange for liquor for the trip to be loaded in cases in the bus, when it can either be retailed (again an offence), or the cost is included in the cost of the ticket which is purchased in advance; and this, though it may technically not bring about the 481 offence of retailing liquor, means to a Scotsman that every drop has to be drunk before he gets back, if it has been paid for.
§
As drafted, my Amendment would not interfere with the carriage of liquor on regular bus services, or the like, about which the Guest Committee were a little ambiguous in their Report. The words relating to the vehicles affected in the Amendment (which go further than those used by the Guest Committee) specifically say:
any public service vehicle used as a contract carriage or on any private hire motor vehicle chartered for a private party.
These are important words, and I would repeat that they omit the question of the stage carriage.
§ I am tempted to describe another incident which occurred to me which makes a point of what I have to say. I was driving to Edinburgh one Sunday through the town near which I live, and as I drove up the High Street the Edinburgh bus left the town in front of me, just as a figure, I will not say staggered, but very nearly staggered, out of a public house—this was about 6 or 7 o'clock. Obviously the man was desolated because he had missed the bus. I had an elderly retainer in the back of the car and she was horrified when I stopped and said to the man, Missed the bus? Do you want a lift? ". "Where are you going?", he said. "Edinburgh", I replied. "That will do", he said. He got in and I drove off.
§ About a quarter-of-an-hour later, having sort of steadied himself, he began to pour out torrents of thanks for what I had done. I asked him where he lived, and he named a place which was some thirty miles in the opposite direction. "You are going the wrong way", I told him. He said, "I know that, but I would do anything to get away from there". This man had got picked up in this bus business and found it was really a booze. He did not like it, but already had had far too much to drink. He admitted to me, "If you had not picked me up I would have been back there and under the counter. I want to get back to the wife and family".
§ I recite this story because there is no doubt that we have an obligation here to do what we can to prevent temptation 482 of this nature from coming in the way of men who fall easily for this sort of thing. They are on the bus and they are stuck there because it is their only way of getting home; and if they are carrying liquor, for which they have already paid, the bus is not going back until every bottle is empty.
§ May I say at this stage that I was speaking to my noble friend, Lady Elliot of Harwood, yesterday, and she asked me specifically to say that had she been able to be here she would strongly have supported my Amendment, feeling, as she does and as I and other noble Lords do, anxious to support any effort which can be made to limit this disgusting practice. It is not only the countryside that has these troubles to face; villages and county boroughs have their High Streets rendered the scene of disgraceful spectacles regularly every Sunday. The town with which I am associated has issued a by-law whereby all hired buses must be out of borough limits by 10 p.m. This is the best they can do to prevent decent people in the town from the hideous experiences which take place on Sunday evenings.
§ Now it is hoped that the closing of public houses will solve this problem, but the bus parties may still be a menace. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will agree with me when I say that we cannot be too sure about bus parties, but your Lordships will see that I have another Amendment to move with the idea of protecting licensed hotels from the sort of thing which the Guest Committee described. One hopes that matters will be better eventually under the new Act, but I have met no one, especially in authority, who does not support this Amendment. I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, as an ex-Provost will bear me out. I have spoken with another well-known ex-Provost, and, of course, with the Provost of the burgh near my home. He is emphatically in favour of this Amendment. If the wording of the Amendment is defective, as it may be, it really should not be beyond the power of the Parliamentary draftsmen to alter it to give effect at least to the intention which lies behind it.
§ As I said before, I am not an abstainer—far from it—and I see no objection to an individual decently 483 taking his dram or his glass any day of the week. But, as I said on Tuesday, I visualise an increase in the number of clubs, especially in the cities, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said on Tuesday in his excellent, if unavailing, speech, he feels the same. I see no reason why the man who wants his drink on a Sunday should not get it, and if he is a Scotsman he thinks about it ahead and provides for his own refreshment and that of his family without having to be landed in the position of being more or less locked in with large supplies of liquor. The clubs which may spring up may add to the complications, but let us hope they do not. However, this revolting practice of setting off Sunday after Sunday on a deliberate booze is detested by the bulk of the people of Scotland, especially the womenfolk, and, with due respect to the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Find-horn, many of us feel that in not including a clause of this sort in the Bill the Government are departing from a specific recommendation of the Guest Committee. I appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17 insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Ferrier.)
§ LORD HUGHESThis is a case where I cannot support the Minister. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has put forward an unanswerable case on this Amendment. I believe it would he correct to say that on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said that the reason why the Government had not accepted the Guest Committee's recommendation was because of the difficulty of drafting a suitable clause to cover the matter. I can well accept that it is beyond the wit even of Parliamentary draftsmen to bring forward a clause which will accomplish perfection in this matter, and it may well be that in the clause suggested by the noble Lord there will be many ways in which people will be able to go about the country and take drink with them. I am afraid that that will probably be the case. But this clause will undoubtedly make it more difficult for many of these organised drinking parties. It will make it so inconvenient for many of the organisers that they will not attempt it.
484 I cannot believe that the people who go on these drinking parties do so just because they want to drink away from home. They go because it is a way in which it is possible for them to get drink on a Sunday which they cannot otherwise get, and they can easily drink two or three pints, or two or three gallons, by doing it this way. But if they have to make their own arrangements of buying individually their supplies for Sunday in advance, then I am firmly persuaded that they will not go away in a bus carrying the stuff with them in order to drink it; they will drink it somewhere else where they are less likely to be a nuisance and a danger to other people.
I think this is a case where the Minister has no justification for declining to accept the Amendment. I say that, accepting the fact that he is perfectly sincere when he says that it is only drafting difficulties that have compelled the Government not to accept it. I do not believe the Government or their advisers are so completely incapable of getting something in this matter, and I think the best way of effecting an improvement in the present position is to insert this clause in the Bill as it stands. If it is not as effective as those of us who are supporting it think it will be, then I am fairly certain that between now and the Report stage the Parliamentary draftsman will be able to devise a form of words which, while not achieving perfection, will at least cure some of the evils. This is one of the real blots on Scottish licensing laws, and we shall be completely failing in our duty to Scotland if we permit this Bill to leave this House without something in it to reduce, if not abolish, this evil of what is nothing less than perambulating public houses on Sunday.
§ 6.22 p.m.
§ LORD CRAIGTONMy Lords, the Government are in full sympathy with my noble friend's case and with the intention of the recommendations of the Guest Committee about liquor in buses. Your Lordships will remember that on Second Reading I explained the difficulties of enforcement, and that rowdy bus parties, to which my noble friend referred, were often in breach of the present law. I made the point that difficulties in enforcing the law could not 485 be solved by making new laws which were no easier to enforce; and I described fully the Government's difficulty in devising a form of offence which would be both understandable and acceptable to the public and not capable of easy evasion. We are grateful to my noble friend for trying to succeed where we have failed. Unfortunately, I must tell him that I have consulted my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Advocate on this clause, and it is the Lord Advocate's view—with which I must agree—that its provisions are open to serious objection. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has a sort of feeling that we are not really trying to find a solution, and that drafting difficulties can be overcome, even if we do not achieve perfection.
§ LORD HUGHESIf I have given that impression, then I apologise to the Minister, because I do not feel so. My charge against the Minister is that he has given up too easily.
§ LORD CRAIGTONI think it is important for your Lordships to realise the point made by my noble friend in his excellent speech, that his Amendment is one which might be described as a professional effort; that is to say, it is an attempt by skilled people, who had the benefit of seeing what was said by myself and others on Second Reading, to draw up an Amendment. I think I must spend a few minutes looking carefully at the wording of this seriously produced and well-attempted Amendment.
First, there is the use of the word "carry". It is used at the start of the clause:
If any person carries or permits to be carried …In what sense is it used there? And who is the person who commits the offence? In the case of the contract carriage, it seems reasonable to take it as meaning, "carriage by the bus"—that is, that the offence is committed by the bus operator or his servant, the driver, or by both. But when we come to the hired car—because the clause appears to apply to hired cars—is this reasonable? The hirer of the car has little control over the use to which a hire car is put and could hardly be held responsible for the carriage of liquor in it by the people to whom he has hired it.486 The word "carry" is used again in the words in brackets,
(except such as may be carried by individual passengers for their private requirements)".But again the meaning of the word is ambiguous. It may be intended to mean "carried by the person all the time he is on the bus". But, if this is the intention, it is doubtful if the drafting achieves it. A person who brings a suitcase on to a bus and places it on the rack or in the boot could possibly be held to be "carrying" the suitcase from the place where he gets on to the place where he gets off. But if "carrying" is interpreted as holding in one's hand, would it be reasonable to have a law which made the question of whether a criminal offence has or has not been committed turn on whether the passenger keeps his bag of bottles on his lap or gets tired and puts them on the floor?But the Government's main difficulty relates to the vagueness of the words "private requirements" in the bracketed phrase. All drink is, in one sense, for some individual's "private requirements", since the only useful end to it is down somebody's "hatch". The law rightly requires a high standard of evidence for a conviction, and, if a passenger claimed that the liquor found on board the bus was for his "private requirements", it would be up to the prosecution to prove that it was not. It does not seem to my right honourable friend the Lord Advocate that the prosecution could be expected to do this. It is notorious that some people's "private requirements" of alcohol are much greater than others. Furthermore, is it not indeed the case that carriage for the "private requirements" of passengers—for consumption by the passengers during the bus outing—is exactly the activity which the Government and your Lordships' House are anxious to restrain? Carriage for some other purpose—to present a bottle to auntie at the end of the journey—would hardly give grounds for complaint.
It may be suggested that the words
carried by individual passengers for their private requirementswould at least prevent the carriage of crates. If so, this would be easy to evade by "breaking bulk" and distributing the bottles around the passengers, perhaps before they entered the bus. But 487 I am advised that it is not entirely clear—bearing in mind the difficulty about the meaning of the word "carry"—whether the phrase would prevent the carriage of crates, which I understand from my noble friend it is intended to do. If it is the case that it is not confined to carriage on the passenger's person or lap, there is nothing to prevent individual passengers, as a matter of convenience, putting the liquor provided for the "private requirements" of each into one or more crates for the purpose of carriage on the bus.Then, consider the position of the bus operator and his driver. First, how are they to find out whether the passenger has liquor in the luggage he has brought on the bus? They could hardly insist on a search, and the liquor might be in a suitcase. And secondly, should an ordinary bus driver seeking to avoid criminal prosecution be asked to interpret such a provision, and to convince a protesting passenger that his interpretation is correct? And is it right that the operator should be at risk of prosecution if his driver interprets it wrongly?
These are, I am sorry to say, destructive criticisms; but they are no more destructive than were our own criticisms of the many similar drafting efforts of the Department, the draftsman and the Ministers concerned. I have dealt with this at some length, because I want my noble friend to be satisfied that his proposals would really not be effective, and I do not want him to feel that his much appreciated effort is being lightly cast aside. In view of what I have said, I hope my noble friend will agree to withdraw his Amendment, and I can assure him, and other noble Lords, that we shall continue to seek the solution that we should both like to find.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLLIn some ways I hope my noble friend does not withdraw his Amendment. I fully understand the difficulties put forward by my noble friend Lord Craigton, but in this day and age so many people are inclined to regard your Lordships' House as being out of touch with the 1960's, that if we make no attempt at all in this Bill to deal with what is acknowledged to be the most scandalous facet of drink in Scotland I think people will say we are completely "ostrich-like" 488 and have no idea at all what happens in the world around us. Therefore, I feel it is better to have something in the Bill, even if it is defective and taken out at another stage and something else is put in, rather than to have nothing at all. At least it will get publicity for this problem, and it will show that we have made an effort to solve it.
§ LORD CRAIGTONMay I say this before my noble friend decides? If your Lordships were to put into a Bill an Amendment which could have the criticism brought upon it which has been mentioned, I do not know whether that would add high repute to your Lordships' House.
§ LORD FERRIERWhile thanking the noble Duke for his support, I should like to point out that he said something which I had omitted to say, perhaps because I tried to conceal from your Lordships my strong feeling that this is a highly important matter to which this Committee must give grave attention before they pass it on. The noble Lord the Minister for State said that the Amendment which I have proposed could not be effective. But I have shown that the existing law is not effective. We all know of the disorderly conduct which occurs all over Scotland every Sunday, and the law is not effective. I, for one, would much rather see this Amendment in the Bill, and as much success achieved with it as is achieved with the existing law against disorderly conduct.
I am sorry that I am not impressed at all by the legal reasons advanced by the Minister of State. I say so for several reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has supported what I said, that a little consideration could adjust some of the difficulties. Take, for instance, what my noble friend Lord Craigton said about the word "carried". All right, let us use the words "loaded upon". Surely the Parliamentary draftsmen can get over that one. I can understand the criticism of the private hire vehicle bringing within its scope the smaller vehicle. All right, let us call it "a private hire vehicle with more than six seats" or something like that. But let us make some effort to put this thing right. I also feel that some of the pundits who have got down to providing the Minister's brief are insulting the sheriffs sitting in their courts. 489 Is the suggestion that the officers of the law in Scotland are not competent sensibly to interpret a clause such as I propose? Really, it is quite wrong that the suggestion should be made that the police would bring before a sheriff an individual or individuals against whom there was a very flimsy case and, if it were a good one, that the sheriff would dismiss it.
I really do not know quite what to do in regard to my Amendment, because if I press it I shall not be able to ask the noble Lord to spend the Christmas Recess in sounding the strength of opinion in Scotland on this matter: and not only the strength of opinion among the people, chiefly the womenfolk, but also that among the police and sheriffs. I believe it would be an absolute eye-opener. I do not feel that I can withdraw my Amendment.
§ LORD STRATHCLYDEI wonder whether I could plead with my noble friend Lord Ferrier in this matter? Everyone is agreed that this is a scandalous state of affairs. The Minister knows full well that it is, and he has said so. But I should not like to lose the opportunity of putting something into the Bill. It might be something of a much more simple nature; it might not be completely watertight, but at any rate it might be a considerable deterrent. The Minister has given his undertaking that he will look at it again, and that if he can possibly find a way round, it he will do something about it. If my noble friend does not withdraw the Amendment and the Committee divide on it, and it so happens that he is defeated, that is the end of the matter; whereas otherwise we have an opportunity for further thought and consideration and it may be that something will come of that. I would therefore press my noble friend to consider again whether he should not withdraw his Amendment.
§ LORD HUGHESI should like to say that I shall not agree to this being withdrawn. I think to do so would defeat the whole object. The only thing which will force some possibility of consideration is a form of words going into the Bill which will not be acceptable to the Government and so place on them the onus of finding some alternative form of words. I think the Minister has made 490 it perfectly clear that, as at presently advised, he can see no prospect of evolving, in his own Department, a form of words which will be satisfactory. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that he ought not to withdraw the Amendment, and that he should endeavour to get the Committee to insert it in the Bill to-night and place firmly on the Government the onus of improving it, if that is possible.
§ LORD CRAIGTONJust for the record, I want to tell the noble Lord. Lord Hughes, what I said. I said that I can assure your Lordships (or words to that effect) that we will continue to seek a solution which we should both like to find.
§ LORD HUGHESThat is so, but one must recognise the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has told us that there is no possibility of his succeeding in finding a form of words. I should say that he has left us in no doubt that he cannot find a form of words.
§ LORD CRAIGTON"Cannot yet" is right; and "very difficult" is right; but we have not given up trying.
§ LORD HUGHESI think you should be given this very strong incentive to make a real effort.
§ LORD FERRIERI cannot quite make out what the Minister has in mind. I feel that it is proper to take most seriously the advice which has been given to me by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. But can the Minister say whether he is going to try to introduce a measure in this Bill which will limit this, or is he going to give it up? I cannot get that clear.
§ LORD CRAIGTONEven if I were to say that I was going to give it up, this Bill has to go through another place. We all know that this is a recommendation of the Guest Report, and the same pressure will be brought on Ministers in another place as is now brought on me. I can give my noble friend an assurance, behind my own assurance: that the Government will and must, by mere Parliamentary pressure, continue to try to find some way of implementing in some respects what the Guest Committee wanted, what we want, and what Scotland wants.
§ LORD FERRIERI feel that the proper course, despite the assistance I have received from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, which I greatly value, would be to say to the Minister that if something is not put in the Bill, then I shall raise the matter again at a later stage. With that clear declaration, and with thanks to the noble Lords who have supported me in this, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ LORD HUGHESBefore agreeing to that, can I have the firm assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that if an Amendment along these lines is not tabled at the next stage by the Government he will reintroduce this Amendment, or an Amendment in a similar form of words so that we shall have an opportunity in this House of inserting something in the Bill, whether the Government admit success or failure in their own efforts?
§ LORD FERRIERCertainly. I have the greatest pleasure in giving that implicit undertaking, provided I am able to be here on my feet.
§ LORD HUGHESOn that, with great reluctance, I will not object to the withdrawal of the Amendment at this stage.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 18 agreed to.
§ 6.40 p.m.
§ LORD FERRIER moved, after Clause 18, to insert the following new clause:
§ Amendment of s. 151 of principal Act.
§ ". Section one hundred and fifty-one of the principal Act (under which it is an offence for any person to attempt to enter a public house while in a state of intoxication) shall apply also to a person attempting to enter any licensed premises (not being premises where he is residing), and any person who after the coming into force of this section contravenes the said section one hundred and fifty-one shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds (instead of the fine not exceeding forty shillings provided for in that section)."
§ The noble Lord said: I will be as brief as I can be, as there is very little to say.
§ LORD CRAIGTONMay I suggest we discuss this with Amendment No. 47, which is consequential?
§ LORD FERRIERIt happens that in studying the Bill I came upon this particular position under Section 151 of the principal Act whereby, as your Lordships 492 are aware, the police have power to prevent an intoxicated person from entering a public house. Now no public houses are going to be open on a Sunday, but the police have not the power to prevent an intoxicated person from entering a licensed hotel. The general object of having the clause is that it will strengthen the powers of the police in dealing with disorderly conduct on the part of persons under the influence of drink, and in particular it will make it an offence for bus parties who may be the worse for drink to stop at hotels, and will also be a contribution to curtailing excessive drinking on Sundays.
§ I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading when I drew attention to this lacuna in the new Bill, but I will say that, at that time, I said that powers should be given to the police to interfere with a drunken person who was entering a club. My noble friend on the Front Bench has satisfied me, in consultation, that that would be quite wrong for various reasons; and, indeed, it would be wrong to prevent a person in such a condition from entering the licensed hotel in which he had his residence. To that end, I feel, and I hope your Lordships will agree, that the feelings of this House are well met by the Amendment as it stands. Further, it is well known that fines paid under many of these Acts to-day in terms of the present value of money are derisory, and it is to that end that I have suggested that a maximum fine for an offence of this nature should be raised from 40s. to £10. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved⅀
After Clause 18, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Ferrier.)
§ LORD CRAIGTONI am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for moving this new clause and for his co-operation with us in drawing it up, together with the consequential Amendment to the Second Schedule. We agree with both the wording and the intention of the Amendment, and I would ask your Lordships to support it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clauses 19 to 21 agreed to.
§ First Schedule [New Forms of Certificate]:
§ LORD CRAIGTONI should like to move this Amendment formally. It has 493 already been discussed with Amendment No. 2.
§ Amendment moved⅀
§ Page 20, line 39, leave out from ("except") to end of line 46, and insert ("as follows, that is to say—
- (a) the certificate holder may sell or supply such liquor to persons taking table meals in the said premises, for consumption by such a person as an ancillary to his meal;
- (b) the certificate holder may sell or supply such liquor to persons residing in the premises, for consumption by such a person or his private friend bona fide entertained by him at his own expense, and may supply such liquor to any private friends of such a person so entertained by him, for consumption by such a friend entertained as aforesaid;").—(Lord Craigton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CRAIGTONI beg to move this Amendment formally.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 50, leave out from ("premises") to ("for") in line 51.—(Lord Craigton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CRAIGTON'This Amendment is formal. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 1, leave out ("so entertained by him") and insert ("bona fide entertained by him at his own expense").—(Lord Craigton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ Second Schedule [Amendments of the Principal Act]:
§ LORD CRAIGTONThis and the following ten Amendments to the Second Schedule are all Amendments to the 1959 Act. They make no innovations in the law. They amend the 1959 Act in accordance with the general principles of this Bill and apply the provisions of the existing law to the new provisions in the Bill. As I have already explained to your Lordships, the most important purpose of the Schedule is to assist those who have to operate the licensing law, by writing into the 1959 Act the effect of the alterations made to that Act by the substantive provisions of this Bill. These eleven Amendments improve the Schedule and assist towards that desirable end. Unless your Lordships wish a detailed explanation I will move them formally and ask Lord Ferrier to move 494 his Amendment, No. 47, in the same way.
§
Amendment moved⁁
Page 22, line 38, leave out from ("certificate") to end of line 39.—(Lord Craigton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CRAIGTONThis is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 22, leave out from ("and") to ("or") in line 23 and insert ("for the words 'as aforesaid' there shall be substituted the words ` in pursuance of section forty-two of this Act or, as the case may be, subsection (2) of section ten of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1961,'").—(Lord Craigton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CRAIGTONThis is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
("(d) in subsection (5), for the words from 'section' onwards there shall be substituted the words 'and to the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of section ten of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1961, the provisions of this Act relating to the procedure to be followed in applications for the grant and confirmation of a new certificate shall apply also in relation to applications for the provisional grant and confirmation of a certificate, and for the purposes of this subsection section forty-two of this Act shall be deemed to apply in relation to an application for the grant of a new off-sale certificate '.").—(Lord Craigton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CRAIGTONAmendment 43 is consequential. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 24, line 4, leave out from ("held") to end of line 6 and insert?—
("(a) in subsection (1), after the word 'reconstruction', where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words 'or extension', for the words 'a hotel certificate or a public house certificate' there shall be substituted the words 'a certificate (other than an off-sale certificate)', after the word 'canteen' there shall be inserted the words '(being a reconstruction, extension or alteration which will affect a public or common part of such premises or any communication with such a part)', and after the word 'reconstruction', in the second and third places where it occurs, there shall be inserted the word 'extension';
(b) in subsection (2), after the word 'court' there shall be inserted the words 'shall not give their consent under this section to any reconstruction, extension or alteration which will materially alter the
495
character of the premises in question, and', and after the word 'reconstruction' there shall be inserted the word 'extension';
(c) after subsection (3), there shall be inserted the following subsection?—
(4) For the purposes of this section—
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CRAIGTONAmendment 44 removes an error. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 49, leave out ("clubs and licensed canteens") and insert ("and clubs").—(Lord Craigton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CRAIGTONThis is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 24, line 50, leave out from ("hours") to end of line 2 on page 25 and insert ("at the end of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following proviso—
'Provided that this subsection shall not apply to off-sale premises, nor in the case of premises for which a hotel or a public house certificate is held, to any part of such premises which is specified in a condition inserted in such certificate by the licensing court by virtue of subsection (2) of section three of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1961.'").—(Lord Craigton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CRAIGTONThe next Amendment corrects a clerical error. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 22, leave out ("if the liquor is sold or supplied for the consumption of") and insert ("the liquor is sold or supplied for consumption by").—(Lord Craigton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD FERRIERIn moving this Amendment, I should like to fill a gap in what I said before and thank the noble Lord on the Front Bench for the endless patience he has shown in discussing this matter with me and in helping me in the drafting of some of my Amendments. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 25, line 25, at end insert—
("24. In section one hundred and fifty-one (which provides that any person attempting to
496
enter a public house while in a state of intoxication shall be liable to a fine not exceeding forty shillings), in subsection (1)—
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CRAIGTONThis is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 25, line 47, at end insert—
("27. In section one hundred and eighty-nine (which contains provisions regarding the trial of offences), in paragraph (e), after the words one hundred and fifty-seven ' there shall be inserted the word ' or ', and the words ' or one hundred and sixty-six ' shall be omitted.").—(Lord Craigton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CRAIGTONThis paragraph was omitted in error. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 26, line 5, at end insert—
("(b) in subsection (2), for the words `one hundred and forty-five' there shall be substituted the words one hundred and forty-eight' and the words ' one hundred and sixty-six ' shall be omitted.").—(Lord Craigton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CRAIGTONThis is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 1, leave out from second ("premises") to ("for") in line 3.—(Lord Craigton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CRAIGTONThis is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 4, leave out ("so entertained by him") and insert ("bona fide entertained by him at his own expense").—(Lord Craigton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to. Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ Third Schedule [Repeal of Enactments]:
§ LORD CRAIGTONI beg to move Amendment No. 52. Amendment moved—
§
Page 29, line 29, column 3, at end insert—
("In section one hundred and eighty-nine, in paragraph (e), the words 'or one hundred and sixty-six'.
497
In section one hundred and ninety-one, in subsection (2), the words ' one hundred and sixty-six'.")—(Lord Craigton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Third Sdhedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ House resumed.