LICENSING BILL

HL Deb 18 July 1961 vol 233 cc549-633

4.38 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. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR) moved, after Clause 8 to insert the following new clause:

Extended hours in restaurants, etc., providing entertainment

.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, in any licensed premises to which section one hundred and four of the Licensing Act, 1953, applies and which are structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of habitually providing, for the accommodation of persons frequenting the premises, musical or other entertainment in addition to substantial refreshment as required by that section (the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor being ancillary to that refreshment and entertainment), the time added by that section to the permitted hours on weekdays shall extend until one o'clock in the morning, and during that time the sale, supply and consumption of intoxicating liquor shall not be restricted in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4) of section seven of this Act:

Provided that this subsection—

1. (a) shall not apply to any part of the premises not habitually set apart for the provision of the refreshment and entertainment, nor authorise the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor for consumption in any such part of the premises or for consumption off the premises; and
2. (b) shall not authorise any sale or supply of intoxicating liquor on a day on which no entertainment is provided, or at a time after the entertainment or the provision of substantial refreshment has ended, nor any sale or supply not in accordance with paragraph (a) of the said subsection (4) to a person admitted to the premises either after midnight or less than half an hour before the entertainment is due to end.

(2) Where subsection (1) above applies to any premises or part of premises, nothing in section one hundred of the Licensing Act. 1953, shall prohibit or restrict the consumption in the premises or part during the first half hour after the entertainment ends of intoxicating liquor supplied before it ends.

(3) In this section "entertainment" does not include any form of entertainment given otherwise than by persons actually present and performing; and, subject to the provisions of this Act, no premises or part shall be treated for the purposes of this section as used or intended to be used for the purpose of habitually providing refreshment and entertainment, or as habitually set apart for that purpose, unless it is used or intended to be used, or is set apart, for the purpose of providing them after, and for a substantial period preceding, the end of the general licensing hours on every weekday or on particular weekdays in every week, subject to any break for a period or periods not exceeding two weeks in any twelve successive months or on any special occasion or by reason of any emergency.

(4) This section shall not authorise the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor except with the sanction of an order of the licensing justices made on the application of a person applying for or holding a justices' licence for the premises in question, and any such order shall lapse when the licence granted is superseded on renewal or transfer or otherwise ceases to be in force, but may be renewed or varied by a further order under this subsection or be revoked under subsection (8) below.

(5) Where the use of any premises or part of premises for the purpose specified in subsection (1) above is, or is intended to be, limited to a particular period or periods of the year, licensing justices may make an order under subsection (4) above to have effect for the whole or part of the period or periods in question, but excluding any period of less than four weeks.

(6) Licensing justices may refuse to make an order under subsection (4) above, or may in such an order limit the operation of this section to a particular part of the premises or to particular periods of the year or to particular weekdays or to a time earlier than one o'clock in the morning (and may impose different limitations in relation to different parts of the premises, different periods or different weekdays), if it appears to them reasonable so to do having regard to all the circumstances and in particular to the comfort and convenience of the occupiers and inmates of premises in the neighbourhood.

(7) Licensing justices shall not make an order under subsection (4) above unless it is shown that the condition of subsection (1) above as to the use or intended use of the premises is satisfied in relation to the premises or part of premises, to the periods, to the weekdays and to the times for which the order is to have effect, and that the premises or part in question is structurally adapted for the purpose:

Provided that licensing justices, in making an order by way of variation or renewal of a previous order, may assume unless they see reason to the contrary that the conditions for the making of the previous order were and still are satisfied.

(8) Licensing justices shall revoke an order under subsection (4) above if they are satisfied on an application made by or on behalf of the chief officer of police for the police area in which the premises are situated, either—

1. (a) that use has not been made for the purpose specified in subsection (1) above of the premises or part of premises for which the order has effect; or
551
2. (b) that it is expedient to revoke the order either by reason of the occurrence of disorderly or indecent conduct in the premises or part or by reason of the conduct of persons resorting to the premises and any annoyance resulting or likely to result from it to the occupiers or inmates of premises in the neighbourhood.

(9) Before making an application for an order under subsection (4) above to be made otherwise than by way of renewal of a previous order (without variation), a person shall give notice of the application to the persons, in the manner and at the times required by paragraph 2 of the Fourth Schedule to this Act on an application for a new justices' licence for the premises; but if through inadvertence or misadventure he fails so to do, subparagraph (7) of that paragraph shall apply.

(10) Where an order under subsection (4) above is made with respect to any premises or part of premises, the holder of the justices' licence shall within fourteen days give written notice of the making of the order to the chief officer of police, and shall send with the notice a copy of the order: and if he fails so to do he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

(11) The provisions of subsection (6) of section ten of this Act as to the posting of a notice in licensed premises where section one hundred and four of the Licensing Act, 1953, applies shall have effect in relation to this section as they have effect in relation to section one hundred and four; and the reference to section one hundred and four in subsection (4) of section ten of this Act shall include a reference to this section.

(12) The powers of licensing justices under this section shall be exercised in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed by rules made, by the Secretary of State.

(13) Where this section applies to any licensed premises or part of licensed premises on a Saturday, nothing in the Sunday Observance Act. 1780, shall apply by reason of the provision there of entertainment (in addition to substantial refreshment) before the time to which the permitted hours on that Saturday may extend by virtue of this section.

The noble and learned Viscount said: Your Lordships will remember that on the Second Reading I promised the House that I would invite your Lordships to consider a proposal under which suitable premises catering for people with more modest purses would be allowed a somewhat more limited extension of hours, at the discretion of the licensing justices. This is, as the first lines show, an extension for dealing with the licensed premises to which Section l04 of the Licensing Act, 1953, applies. This Amendment has a remarkable inspiration, in that when the subject was mooted in another place the suggestion received support not only from all quarters of the House but from those who had been active in supporting the temperance point of view and also from those who had considerable ministerial experience. With that happy beginning, I want in a few sentences to make clear the safeguards that we have attached to the provision.

The new clause after Clause 8 deals with extended hours in restaurants, et cetera, providing entertainment; and the new clause after Clause 28, which is Amendment No. 58, deals with extended hours in premises of registered clubs. Amendment No. 62, to the Third Schedule, and Amendment No. 76, to the Ninth Schedule, are consequential. As all your Lordships who are interested in this subject know, it is not a question of extending a matter to clubs—they are already within the existing law.

Let me now summarise the substantial safeguards which have been introduced in regard to my proposal—,namely, the facilities for the sale or supply of drink up to one o'clock in the morning as an ancillary to substantial refreshment and entertainment. First, the facilities will not be available to all licensed premises or registered clubs which ask for them. The premises or club must have satisfied the licensing justices, in the case of the premises, or the magistrates, in the case of a club, that they are structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, for the provision of, first, substantial refreshment, and secondly, entertainment to which the supply of liquor is ancillary. The second point is, that even then the premises will not qualify unless the refreshment and entertainment are habitually provided for a substantial period before the ordinary closing time. Those responsible cannot just lay it on after the public houses have closed. In addition, there are other safeguards against people using them merely for the purpose of a late drink.

The third point is that the licensing justices or the magistrates may refuse an application outright, or grant it only in limited terms—for example, until only midnight, instead of one in the morning, or only for certain days of the week—if they think it reasonable to refuse or restrict the order having regard, in particular, to the comfort and convenience of neighbouring residents or hospitals or the like. The neighbours and other people concerned will have power to object to the application. Finally, in general an extension order, if granted, will come up for annual review. In addition, the police may at any time apply for revocation of the order on grounds of disorderly or indecent conduct, or annoyance to neighbours or the like. With these safeguards, the provisions can be recommended to the Committee as providing reasonable facilities for persons wishing to enjoy a modest evening's entertainment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 8 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

Just a sentence in support of the Amendment. I have no questions to ask. I am pleased with this Amendment. Many of my friends in another place are pleased, too. We like the safeguards in it, and also the fact that the justices have an honourable mention. They have been rather criticised—not for themselves, but in relation to the absence of their effect. We welcome the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 15 agreed to.

4.45 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 15 to insert the following new clause:

Restriction on grant of justices' licence for premises on special roads

".—(1) Premises shall be disqualified for receiving a justices' licence if they are situated on land acquired or appropriated by a special road authority, and for the time being used, for the provision of facilities to be used in connection with the use of a special road provided for the use of traffic of class I (with or without other classes).

(2) For the purposes of this section—

1. (a) "special road" and "special road authority" have the same meanings as in the Highways Act, 1959, except that "special road" includes a trunk road to which by virtue of section nineteen of that Act the provisions of the Act apply as if the road were a special road; and
2. (b) "class I" means class I in the Fourth Schedule to that Act, as varied from time to time by any order under section twelve of the Act, but if that Schedule is amended by such an Order so as to add to it a further class of traffic, the order may adapt the reference in this section to traffic of class I so as to take account of the additional class."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This again is an Amendment of which I gave notice in my speech on Second Reading. Your Lordships will remember that I said that we would propose a statutory ban on the establishment of licenced premises on motorways. This Amendment also implements an undertaking given on the Report stage in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Subsection (1) of the Amendment has the effect of prohibiting the grant of a justices' licence, whether "on" or "off", and including a restaurant or residential licence under Part I of the Bill, in respect of premises on land acquired or appropriated by a special road authority and used for the provision of facilities in connection with a motorway. In practice, such land, which is known as "service area", is leased by the special road authority to persons who there provide petrol stations, restaurants and the like. Your Lordships will remember that a "special road authority" is the Minister or a local highway authority—in practice, generally a county council, which constructs a motorway in accordance with a scheme confirmed by the Minister.

Under subsection (2)(a) the ban on licensed premise's will also apply to certain trunk roads specified in the Fifth Schedule to the Highways Act, 1959, which, by Section 19 of that Act, are to be treated as special roads. These roads are in every respect similar to motorways—indeed, some of them will form part of projected motorways. That is, in short, how the clause will effectively prohibit the establishment of licensed premises on motorways. I have carefully considered the objection that the absence from motorways of restaurants that can sell drink will encourage people to fill themselves up with drink before they enter the motorway. That was an objection which was sent to me by correspondents. In answer I would say this: that a man who is determined to get a drink will go a long way for it. But it is, I believe, true of the majority of people that if drink is not available on the motorway then they are less likely to take it. We must remember, too, that people who go on the motorway may be driving their cars at 80 or 90 miles per hour, and if they meet with an accident it will probably be a fatal accident. Therefore, I ask your Lordships' support for this ban of which I gave notice on Second Reading. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 15, insert the said new clause. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

We desire to welcome wholeheartedly the new clause which is proposed by the noble and learned Viscount, because it fulfils a pledge, after debates in another place which revealed a weakness in the Bill, and in many other ways seeks to reduce accidents on the road. As to people who think that there still ought to be drink provided on, say, a motorway like the M.1, if I recall aright drivers are not supposed to stop on them at all. If you are going to have people going off and coming on again, that is exactly the way in which accidents will happen. The Government have made a most necessary Amendment in regard to this matter, and I hope that the clause will be passed.

LORD OGMORE

I, too, should like to support this new clause, and I am very glad that the noble and learned Viscount has moved it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16 [Miscellaneous amendments as to grant of licences, proceedings and fees]:

LORD BURDEN

This Amendment really forms part of Amendment 24B, and it may be convenient if I deal with both Amendments now. This Amendment has been submitted to meet the views of the Association of Municipal Corporations. It is therefore my duty to declare an interest since, like some other noble Lords, I have the honour to be a Vice-President of the A.M.C. Subsection (3) of Clause 16 says: Licensing justices may grant an ordinary removal to any premises in their licensing district from any premises in the same county or county borough or in a county or county borough adjoining that county or county borough (and not only from premises in their licensing district or the county of which it forms part.…). That is the law as it stands to-day. But my submission is that, while it is a step in the right direction, it is still unnecessarily restrictive. May I illustrate the point by taking an actual example? A county borough may have to develop an overspill area beyond a Green Belt, and the new overspill area may not be in the county which adjoins the county borough. That is a general statement.

The particular instance is the City of Manchester, which proposes to build in Glossop. By some accident of geography Lancashire does not adjoin Derbyshire; there is a small strip of Cheshire which separates the two counties. I would submit that there is no particular merit in restricting facilities to a county which adjoins. The case which I should like to ask the Committee to consider is this. Manchester City Council have in hand extensive slum clearance schemes. As part of comprehensive planning, licensed premises in these slum clearance areas are purchased, at approved and agreed figures, of course, by the authority, and the licences are then put in suspense, and there is no compensation payable to the brewers or anybody else in connection with the licence or licences put in suspense. But as a corollary to this, an agreement has been reached with the trade for a fair and equitable allocation of removal licences as and when sites become available in the council's overspill areas. This important and, I venture to think, valuable social experiment in regard to licences in slum clearance areas depends for its successful working on the good will and co-operation of all the parties concerned: the licensing planning authority, the trade, and the licensing justices responsible.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST)

Now that the noble Lord has reached this point, it might be to your Lordships' convenience if I told the noble Lord now that I can accept his first Amendment, for many of the reasons he has mentioned. But the second, for doubts we have on the reasons which I think he is about to mention, I cannot accept.

LORD BURDEN

There is no point in continuing, then. If the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is prepared to accept the first Amendment, that substantially meets the case. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 42, leave out from ("premises") to ("(and") in line 44.—(Lord Burden.)

EARL BATHURST

The noble Lord has explained most clearly the purposes of his Amendment and I accept what he has been saying. As the noble Lord has kindly indicated that he will not move Amendment 24B, possibly it would not be worth talking about it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

4.58 p.m.

LORD MERRIVALE moved, after Clause 16 to insert the following new clause:

Public service vehicle excise licences

".—(1) An excise licence may be granted to the owner of any public service vehicle to which this section applies, authorising the sale by retail to passengers on the vehicle of any intoxicating liquor for consumption in the vehicle whilst operating on any specified service. (2)(a) This section applies to a public service vehicle which is constructed or adapted for the supply of food to the passengers carried therein, and is certified by the Traffic Commissioners to be suitable or of a type suitable for the sale of intoxicating liquor to the passengers while the vehicle is operating on any specified service; (b) in any certificate granted for the purposes of this section in respect of any public service vehicle the Traffic Commissioners shall specify the service or services whether of stage carriages or express carriages, upon which intoxicating liquor may be sold in the vehicle, and the Traffic Commissioners may from time to time vary the services so specified in any certificate; (c) the Traffic Commissioners shall have power to revoke a certificate granted for the purposes of this section; (d) any certificate granted for the purposes of this section shall unless previously revoked remain in force so long as the holder of the certificate is the holder of a public service vehicle licence in respect of the vehicle to which the certificate relates; (e) the holder of a public service vehicle licence who is aggrieved by the refusal or failure of the Traffic Commissioners to grant a certificate in respect of the vehicle to which the licence relates or to specify any particular service in the certificate or by the revocation of a certificate granted in respect of the vehicle, may appeal to the Minister of Transport and subsections (6) and (7) of section one hundred and forty-three of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, shall apply to appeals under this subsection in like manner as those subsections apply to appeals under that section.

(3) A licence granted under this section in respect of a public service vehicle shall cease to have effect as respects that vehicle if the holder of the licence ceases to hold a public service vehicle licence in respect of that vehicle, but may be transferred, on the application of the holder of the licence, so as to attach to some other public service vehicle to which this section applies, and of which the holder of the licence is the owner.

(4) Section one hundred and twenty of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which provides that no intoxicating liquor shall be sold by retail without a justices' licence) shall not apply to any person holding a licence under this section.

(5) Any licence granted under this section shall be carried in the public service vehicle.

(6) It shall be an offence for any person travelling on a vehicle licensed under this section to supply the driver thereof with alcoholic refreshment while the driver is in charge of the vehicle.

(7) In this section— the expressions 'public service vehicle', 'stage carriage' and `express carriage' have the meanings assigned to them by the Road Traffic Act, 1960, `specified service' means a service of stage carriages or express carriages specified in a certificate granted for the purposes of this section, and 'the Traffic Commissioners' in relation to any public service vehicle means the Traffic Commissioners by whom the public service vehicle licence in respect of that vehicle was granted.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ampthill and myself. As your Lordships may be wondering whether this is the appropriate Bill for endeavouring to insert a new clause dealing with public service vehicle excise licences to authorise the sale by retail to passengers on the vehicle of intoxicating liquor, I would remind your Lordships that, according to Erskine May, in the sixteenth edition on page 503, it is said that: Amendments must be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill". I would humbly submit to your Lordships that this Amendment is relevant if we consider the long Title of this Bill. We see that that reads as follows: this is An Act … to make further provision about the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor … and for purposes connected therewith. Therefore, I humbly submit that it is in order for me to move this Amendment in this Bill.

The Committee will see on studying this Amendment which is a complete new clause, that it is the traffic commissioners who would be empowered to issue a certificate stating that the public service vehicle was constructed or adapted so as to be suitable for the sale of intoxicating liquor to the passengers while the vehicle is operating on any specified service. Not only must the vehicle be approved as suitable for the purpose by the traffic commissioners, but they would also have power to determine on which services such a certificate could be granted or not. Here I would state that the two terms which are mentioned in the Amendment—that is, "express carriage" and "stage carriage"—are clearly defined in Section 117 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. I would add that this Amendment does not cover contract carriages, because I feel that your Lordships may worry with regard to charabancs which call at pubs under contract licences. It has nothing to do with that form of public service vehicle operation. It deals purely with long-distance coaches—in other words, express carriages and stage carriages— although naturally one would not expect operators to wish to serve alcoholic drinks at Piccadilly Circus on such a type of stage carriage.

Since the traffic commissioners are already responsible for issuing public service vehicle licences I trust that your Lordships will agree that they would be the appropriate body to issue such certificates; and it would be the same traffic commissioners who issued the public service vehicle licence who would be issuing the required certificate. Therefore, they would have complete knowledge as to the services run, particulars of the vehicle, and so on. It would be only after the traffic commissioners had issued this certicate that the holder would be entitled to apply for an Excise licence.

When a similar Amendment was moved in another place in Standing Committee on April 25 of this year, I think it was rightly stressed that it was only on that form of long-distance transport that alcoholic beverages could not be served. They are already being served on aircraft, on board ships and on trains. During the debate on this Amendment concern was expressed, too, with regard to the question of alcoholic drink being given by anyone on board—whether it be the steward, stewardess or passenger —to the driver while in charge of the vehicle. That point has now been covered under subsection (6) of the Amendment, which says: It shall be an offence for any person travelling on a vehicle licensed under this section to supply the driver thereof with alcoholic refreshment while the driver is in charge of the vehicle. Therefore, as I said, it would then be a statutory offence for anybody to serve such a drink. In fact, any driver who partakes of alcoholic refreshment while in charge of a public service vehicle is immediately discharged by the operator himself.

I think that it may be reasonably said that public service vehicle drivers are not prone to insobriety. It may interest your Lordships to have some figures with regard to the most important long-distance public service vehicle operator —that is, express and stage service operator—that we have in this country. During the last 42 years, during which time this company have carried 4,880 million passengers on their vehicles, there have been only eight passengers out of that large number who have suffered fatal injury while travelling on their vehicles. Taking the industry as a whole, the 1959–60 statistics of the Ministry of Transport show that during that year, for each fatally injured person there had been 188,350,000 passenger journeys made. That, I think, shows that, anyhow from the point of view of the effect of drink on drivers, it would definitely not appear that drivers of public service vehicles are likely to indulge too much in alcoholic beverages.

I should now like to refer to a passage in the OFFICIAL REPORT of Standing Committee E of April 25, and specifically to a statement made by the Minister, Mr. Dennis Vosper, in column 1249. The Minister's words read as follows: My hon. Friend makes no provision for an Excise licence in these passenger vehicles, whereas for other forms of transport—by sea, rail and air—an Excise licence must, of course, he obtained. That provision is made under the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, which also exempts those forms of transport from obtaining a justices' licence, Therefore, technically, the Clause is not acceptable because one would have to make some provision here for an Excise licence, in parallel with other forms of transport. In this Amendment provision is made for an Excise licence, and the reason for wishing to insert this provision in this Bill is the fact that there is a great diversity of circumstances in which public service vehicles are operated. Your Lordships are no doubt well aware that, as has been stated by the Minister, although he did not mention the Act, the various Excise licences—that is, passenger aircraft, passenger vessel and railway vehicle Excise licences—are granted under Sections 152, 153 and 154 of the 1952 Customs and Excise Act. There appears to me to be the greatest similarity between an aircraft carrying passengers and flying between two places in the United Kingdom and an express carriage public service vehicle also carrying passengers and operating between two places in this country.

I would say that this similarity extends, too, to the layout and equipment of the special vehicles themselves. Last Tuesday I was one of those Members of your Lordships' House who were taken round one of these specially-constructed vehicles, and I must say that it is a most luxuriously fitted-out, double-deck, long-distance coach. As in an aircraft (I do not wish to weary your Lordships with details, but I think they are important because they do show how the vehicle is fitted out, and that does have a bearing, I think, on this Amendment), it has a galley or servery, from which food and refreshments, but not at the moment alcoholic drinks, are served to the passengers of the vehicle by a steward or stewardess. There is a toilet; a washing basin; luggage storage; parcel racks; individual reading lamps; adjustable seats and small individual tables. So, from the point of view of equipment, it is very similar to a passenger-carrying aircraft. In spite of these adequate facilities, there is ample room for moving around in these vehicles, for they seat 50 passengers instead of the normal 76. I may say at this point that I have had a certain amount of experience with commercial and public service vehicles. They are extremely well-designed, well-built, and the workmanship is of the highest order.

At the moment there are only a certain number of these vehicles in service. There are 31 coaches, and they operate on six different long-distance routes. I understand that four more long-distance services are about to be initiated, but at the moment there are only six. The distances are quite considerable. If one considers only the Lancashire-Midlands-London service, that covers 253 miles; and if one considers the Keswick-London service, that is 302 miles. I mention these distances, and I will also mention the question of time, because I think that has a bearing as well on this Amendment. These services operate both during the day and during the night. If I may take the service from London to Carlisle, I think it could reasonably be said that the time taken by train is approximately 5½ hours. By coach it is 12 hours.

The question of cost is also, I think, an important factor. A second-class return fare to Carlisle by train costs £5 10s., while a return coach fare from Carlisle to London costs £2 13s. Therefore, I feel that if one does not allow for similar facilities to be provided on these long-distance coaches, one is unfairly penalising the poorer section of the community. One section of the community which would also be affected is the elderly and retired people, who certainly have the time, but possibly not the money, and therefore cannot go by the faster route—that is by train—and have to go by the slower and cheaper way—by coach.

Your Lordships may feel at this juncture: Well, these vehicles can stop en route, so that passengers may partake of food or refreshment. But the fact is that there are wide variations in the standards and scope of refreshment facilities around the country. This fact is causing operators to extend the provision of food facilities to the vehicles themselves. I am advised that it is not uncommon for 20 coaches, carrying in all approximately 800 persons, to pull up at the same halt, and at a similar time. Your Lordships can appreciate the difficulty in obtaining any form of satisfactory service when there are hundreds of passengers to be served all at the same time. If your Lordships would like me to quote one place in particular where these conditions do appertain, I would mention Penrith.

I also think that there will be an increased demand for the facility for which I am endeavouring to obtain the approval of your Lordships and Her Majesty's Government, because there are in train at the present time regulations to extend the length of public service vehicles by 6 feet. I feel—and operators have told me this—that they would more than likely use that 6 feet extra length to provide on single-deck coaches the facilities I have mentioned which are already on these double-deck vehicles.

I am moving this Amendment for one other reason. At the moment it is perfectly legal for a passenger to board a public service vehicle carrying either a large number of beer bottles, a bottle of whisky or gin, or a flask of brandy in his hip pocket. I should have thought that it would be a much neater method of serving alcoholic drinks if they could be served in specially—and I stress the word "specially"—fitted-out vehicles under the control of a qualified steward or stewardess. Here I would add that it sometimes happens that passengers board coaches after probably having (if I may use the expression) "one too many for the road". If that passenger makes a nuisance of himself and cannot (shall I say?) be amiably coerced by the steward or stewardess to adopt a more reasonable attitude on the vehicle, then in that case the driver halts the vehicle at a police station and the person is off-loaded. On speaking to one of these stewardesses last Tuesday, I felt that one of the factors that did influence operators in their choice of such personnel was that they should have a pleasant manner, and should be capable, particularly, of exhibiting the art of handling people. I feel that this is a reasonable facility for which I am asking the approval of Her Majesty's Government and your Lordships in order that drinks can be served on these long-distance coaches, because it would seem to me a much neater method than having people board a coach, as is done at the moment, carrying bottles of beer or alcohol. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 16, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Merrivale.)

5.18 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Every one of your Lordships will agree that everything that could have been said by my noble friend Lord Merrivale in favour of this Amendment has been said. But I ask not only your Lordships but also my noble friend not to press the Amendment, in favour of which he has so forcibly argued. I want my noble friend to know that I am always prepared to consider and respect a minority view; and he knows, as I am sure most of your Lordships know, that this Amendment was defeated by a narrow majority in Committee in another place. It was not called on the Report stage, and therefore it did not get into the Bill. The fact that it was defeated in that sort of Division shows that this is a matter of very great controversy indeed.

I need hardly assure my noble friend that those who opposed it in another place, and who felt strongly against it, are of varied background. It is opposed by temperance organisations. It certainly does not commend itself to all those who travel on coaches. My right honourable friend, who was then Minister of State, Home Office, pointed out that many letters had been received in the Home Office strongly opposing the proposal. He went on to state that the letters did not necessarily come from temperance organisations. They included passengers in the vehicle and, to quote his words: There has been very strong public representation against this proposal. I cannot help thinking for a moment of those happy days when I was a boy and used to read adventure stories. It was almost an invariable incident, in historical adventure stories, that the boyish hero, aged about sixteen, had to ride in a stage coach and next to him was always an enormous lady who drank continuously from a bottle of gin throughout the journey. I cannot help feeling a sort of spiritual presence by my side, of the heroes of those old adventure books who objected so strongly to that position.

But I want to do justice to the arguments which my noble friend has advanced. I think there is certainly a great difference between trains and coaches in this regard. With regard to aeroplanes I think that my noble friend must admit that there is a stronger analogy. There are obvious difficulties which will occur to noble Lords who are accustomed to travel. Another point which will be of interest to the Committee, because the Committee have just had the advantage of hearing my noble and learned friend in quite another context, is that my noble and learned friend Lord Guest was Chairman of a Committee, which considered the Scottish licensing laws and which submitted its first Report last October. I concede at once to my noble friend Lord Merrivale that this had special relation to Sunday bus and coach parties. The Committee recommended that the consumption of drink should not be allowed in public service vehicles. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State said in another place: Always hearing in mind that we are considering much more limited and specialised conditions, I should have thought that if this matter were publicly examined, as it was in Scotland, there would be a very strong body of opinion opposed to this provision, just as there was in Scotland.

LORD MERRIVALE

The operators concerned are perfectly willing to do anything that is required. The granting of a certificate is subject to the approval of the Traffic Commissioners, and if they felt that any service going to Scotland should not have a certificate they would not grant it. Secondly, I should like to mention that the operators are perfectly willing either not to carry alcohol on vehicles when going to Scotland or have it off-loaded at the Border, or to lock up the alcohol in the vehicle.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not think that my noble friend has appreciated the point I am making. My noble and learned friend Lord Guest and his Committee inquired into the matter in Scotland (I want to be perfectly fair) with special reference to Sunday coach parties, and found that there was a considerable and serious body of opinion against this provision and against the serving of drink on public service vehicles. I hope that my noble friend will understand that I am being studiously moderate in this matter. This is a very controversial proposal which, as I say, was defeated, though narrowly, in Committee in the House of Commons. A number of noble Lords may put it more strongly, but I am sure that others will agree with me when I put it in this way. Public opinion is not ready for this at the present time. This is not a case Where one can put the argument, which is often a very fair argument, that if people do not want the drink, they need not have it. If they do not want to drink on a public service vehicle, they cannot help being brought up against it, and the only alternative is not to make a journey by public service vehicle. So the classical argument against opposition does not apply.

My noble friend said that he had gone part of the way to meeting objection in providing in his Amendment that an excise licence may be granted to the owner of any public service vehicle to which the clause applies, but, of course, his Amendment does not say what the excise duty shall be. The Customs and Excise could not accept that an excise licence should be issued without any duty being payable, and there is no case for singling out public service vehicles operators and allowing them to sell liquor without payment of an excise duty when all other people who sell liquor under the authority of an excise licence, including railways, aircraft and passenger vessel operators, are required to pay duty. I do not think it is right to put it to your Lordships that it should be without a duty. My noble friend is in this dilemma. Either he wants an excise licence without a duty or an excise licence with a duty. In the latter case, it would be necessary, if his Amendment were inserted in the Bill and it went back to another place, to seek a Ways and Means Resolution to cover the new excise or taxing charge imposed by the new clause.

I should be the last person to use the argument that your Lordships cannot introduce a new provision, but for this House to introduce a taxing provision, to disagree with another place, and send the Bill back to another place so that they would need to have a Ways and Means Resolution for it—I am trying to put it moderately—would be a very unusual exercise of our position.

LORD MERRIVALE

There have been a number of precedents for this, when the House of Commons have been willing to waive their privileges. Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1946, became, if I recall rightly, Section 152 of the Customs and Excise Act with regard to allowing alcoholic drinks to be served aboard aircraft. In that case, I understand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved a Ways and Means Resolution, and he said that an Excise duty of £1 shall be charged on licences, to be taken out annually by the owner of a passenger aircraft or his agent, authorising the sale of intoxicating liquor to passengers in the aircraft. If the words "public service vehicle" were substituted for "aircraft", would it not be possible for a member of Her Majesty's Government to move a similar Ways and Means Resolution in another place?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

All things are possible, but some things are not expedient. My noble friend is asking the Government to go back to another place and there put down a Ways and Means Resolution to carry in another place, at the instance of your Lordships' House, a financial provision which they have rejected. Of course it is possible, but one must keep a certain comity of relationship between the Houses, and to ask us to do that is, I think, an unreasonable request.

But it does not stop there. At the moment the Amendment is defective, and equally in subsection (6) it creates a new offence but does not specify the penalty which it to be imposed if a conviction takes place. As I have said, this is a matter of great controversy, and where there is such a division of opinion it would be wrong to force it on the members of the public. Secondly, I say that it would be far more suitably dealt with by a Bill which concentrated on this point rather than by a Bill which, on the whole, deals with entirely different subjects. I suggest to my noble friend and those who are interested with him that it is a matter in which they could test the opinion of both Houses of Parliament by a Private Member's Bill dealing with this special subject. This is such la controversial matter, as I have said, and is so bitterly opposed, that I would ask my noble friend not to press the Amendment; and if he does, I would ask your Lordships to reject it.

LORD BURDEN

A phrase used by the noble and learned Viscount has brought me to my feet. I do not see in this proposed new clause any protection for the travelling public using the vehicle. That brings to my mind one of the rules in the railway rule book which runs something like this: "In the event of any passenger being drunk or disorderly to the annoyance of others the guard must use all reasonable means to abate the nuisance, failing which he must have the passenger removed at the next station." Is it proposed that if anybody gets drunk or disorderly he will be dumped on the roadside?

LORD MERRIVALE

The noble Lord did not hear my argument. I mentioned that at the moment, should such circumstances arise, a steward or stewardess who could not take the action mentioned by the noble Lord would instruct the driver to stop at a police station.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

5.36 p.m.

LORD PEDDIE moved, after Clause 16 to insert the following new clause:

Licensing justices

. A justice having an interest in the profits of any premises shall not be thereby disqualified under subsection (4) of section forty-eight of the Licensing Act, 1953, or otherwise from acting under that Act or this Act, if he would not fall to be treated as having such an interest but for the fact that he has a beneficial interest in shares of a company or other body having an interest in those profits, and if his beneficial interest in the shares of the company or body does not extend to shares of a total nominal value greater than twenty-five pounds, or to more than one-hundredth in nominal value of its issued share capital or of any class of its issued share capital. In this subsection 'share' includes stock, and 'share capital' shall be construed accordingly.

The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I hope your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments while I endeavour as briefly as possible to state the background and circumstances which provide its justification and purpose. Section 48 of the Licensing Act, 1953, states that no justice of the peace shall act in any case that concerns premises in which he is financially interested. On the face of it, that is reasonable and justifiable, but practice has disclosed quite a number of anomalies and, indeed, some injustice in the strict interpretation of this section of the Act.

The Government have been aware of these difficulties for some time and have endeavoured to search for a remedy. In the original Bill that was presented in another place the Government sought to deal with this situation in Clause 13 (1), which allowed licensing justices to hold shares up to a value of £500 in any concern that may be involved in the application to the justices. That clause was withdrawn on the Committee stage in another place, but the Government spokesman indicated that, although it was appreciated by many that the amount suggested in the clause was rather too high, there certainly was need to deal with the intolerable situation that had been created by the Licensing Act, 1953.

This Amendment takes the place of the original clause, but brings the shareholding down to the almost trivial amount of £25, which I believe, judging from debates that have taken place in another place, would be acceptable to the Government. The operation of this clause has a bearing upon many organisations and many individuals associated indirectly with firms and concerns of various kinds. But the difficulties of co-operative societies, in particular, have been highlighted in debates in another place, with especial reference to the Barnsley Co-operative Society. It is for that reason that I make mention of it, and would, in passing, indicate that I, too, have an interest in being a member of a co-operative society.

Special difficulties have arisen in the County Borough of Barnsley, although, as I shall endeavour to point out later in my speech, this does not apply solely to Barnsley, and the set of circumstances I shall describe apply to many other towns and citizens in Great Britain. The Barnsley Co-operative Society has a membership of 140,000 and it is an extraordinarily high proportion of the population: indeed it is greater than the total population. The figure is explained by the fact that the membership reaches outside the county borough, and 99 out of every 100 families in the county borough of Barnsley contain a cooperative member. That Society has a number of off-licences, and I would point out that with one exception every justice of the peace for the County Borough of Barnsley, is a member of the Barnsley Co-operative Society. Those are the circumstances in Barnsley.

Under Section 4 of the Licensing Act, the licensing justices in the county borough have the sole authority for the granting or renewal of licences. Therefore, the situation in Barnsley (and I must apologise for constantly using this place as an illustration of my argument) is that there is no tribunal that can adjudicate upon any application on behalf of the Society, not even for the renewal of an existing off-licence held by the Society. I know that the problem could probably be resolved by a number of these members resigning from the Society, adjudicating upon the Bench and, when the decision is made, rejoining the Society. But such a method would not he satisfactory—indeed, is not satisfactory—and, furthermore, would be a complete mockery of the law.

There is no suggestion of politics in this matter, for the chairman of the Conservative Party in Barnsley is a member of the Co-operative Society and also a magistrate. Barnsley, I might say, is a very enlightened community. Some might suggest that one could find non-co-operators as justices of the peace. But I am quite confident that those responsible for the appointment of the justices would recognise my statement that that would mean the destruction of the fundamental principle that is employed in the selection of justices on the basis of merit and suitability. I have indicated to your Lordships that the Barnsley case is not an isolated one. There are many other cities and towns that are affected, but I will not trouble your Lordships with the exceedingly long list that I have in my possession.

The idea of this Amendment is not new: there is nothing new in it. It is copied from the Local Government Act, which provides that a member of a local authority who has indirectly a pecuniary interest in a firm not exceeding £200 in shares, or one-hundredth of the total nominal value, can consider and, indeed, vote on any contract relating to that particular firm in relation to the local authority upon which the councillor serves. Later that amount was increased to £500—I forget the precise date when the increase was made. Therefore, the principle is already accepted. There is nothing new in terms of principle in the Amendment that I put forward. The Amendment reduces the amount to the trivial figure of £25, and I am quite sure your Lordships will appreciate that such a small holding could not affect judgment.

Incidentally, I may say in passing, making reference once again to the question of co-operative justices, that in that regard the interest is a fixed one and, therefore, quite irrespective of the profitability of the venture. It has no bearing whatsoever on the remuneration that can be derived from the holding of those shares. I must say that this applies to many other organisations apart from co-operative societies. Persons who have investments in the increasingly popular unit trusts, and persons with very small investments in various companies, can hardly be aware of the implications when they sit upon the licensing bench. I am quite sure your Lordships will be appreciative of the serious difficulties that almost unconsciously arose out of the original Licensing Act. I would say that, unless we seize the opportunity to deal with this situation now to provide the solution which is indicated, we cannot solve this problem for a matter of two or three years at the very least. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 16, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Peddie.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not think that anything lengthy is required after, if I may say so, the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peddie. As he said, we have considered this point, and we have tried to find the best way of meeting it. I think the noble Lord will agree that his suggestion today is very like the one put by my right honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General in another place and, therefore, without more ado, I advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment.

LORD HAWKE

Before we accept this Amendment, does not the fact that a total nominal value of £25 is mentioned in this Amendment raise precisely the same difficulties the noble Lord has mentioned in regard to unit trusts? If the licensing justice had to calculate his holding in terms of one-thousandth of a unit to see that his share did not amount to as much as £25, is that not going to lead to great difficulties? Must there be a limit of some kind?

LORD PEDDIE

I do not think that involves any serious difficulty whatsoever. Originally, the suggestion was made for an amount of £500 nominal value, and then £250. There was a problem there in that while one may have £250 nominal value, the real value may be considerable. It could be argued that it could have some bearing upon the judgment of the person. In this regard £25 is so small a sum, that, even in the case of a holding in a unit trust, a person's share would have such a wide spread of investment that it is quite obvious that there would be no possibility of the holding of a few shares in a unit trust having any bearing upon the case. If you had a unit trust which confined itself exclusively to brewery or similar shares, and which was involved in an application, the man himself would have to calculate it. Personally, I can see no difficulty at all with regard to the £25. That amount is purely nominal and should create no difficulty in that regard.

LORD HAWKE

In fact, a holding in a unit trust, even if on calculation it amounted to more than £25, would not disqualify the justice from acting in that way? Do I understand that aright?

LORD PEDDIE

Quite frankly, I do not follow the point. If any person has £25 in a unit trust, then there has to be some measure of calculation as to what amount may be invested in the particular concern that is making application to that bench. As the law now stands, irrespective of any interest whatsoever, no matter what it may be, if you have any interest at all you cannot adjudicate in a case before that bench. That is the principle which is challenged in this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.50 p.m.

LORD BURDEN moved, after Clause 16 to insert the following new clause:

Overspill areas

".—(1) Where in an overspill area the Minister of Housing and Local Government is satisfied that there has been a comprehensive allocation of sites for licensed premises and has so informed the licensing justices for the licensing district or districts within which that area lies, then, if the holder of a legal or equitable estate or interest in land within that area applies to the licensing justices for the licensing district in which the land is situated for the removal of a licence to premises comprised or to be comprised in that estate or interest, the justices shall grant him a licence unless they are not satisfied that—

1. (a) the premises are fit and convenient for the purpose;
2. (b) the applicant is not disqualified by the Licensing Act, 1953 or any other Act for holding a justices' licence and is in all other respects a fit and proper person to hold a justices' licence; and
3. (c) the existing provision of licensed premises within the licensing district is such that there is no need for the premises which are the subject of the application to be licensed.

(2) In this section "overspill area" means either—

1. (a) any land acquired by a local authority other than the local authority for the district in which the land is situated, under Part V of the Housing Act, 1957; or
2. (b) any land designated under section 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 and acquired under sections 37 and 38 by a local authority other than the county borough or county district in which the land is situated; or
573
3. (c) any land authorised to be acquired by the receiving authority or by any other local authority under section 6 of the Town Development Act, 1952."

The noble Lord said: While I am appreciative of the noble Earl's acceptance of my former Amendment, I want briefly to run over the points in this Amendment in order that we may hear what Her Majesty's Government have to say in regard to it, and because I fear, as I will explain later, that the former Amendment alone may lead to difficulties between the licensing planning authority and the justices responsible for the licenses in the overspill areas. Subsection (1) of the new clause explains the circumstances in which the justices would be obliged to grant the removal of a licence to an applicant holding an interest in land in an overspill area, whose application derives from a comprehensive allocation of sites for premises agreed with the trade in the town from which the overspill area comes. That, of course, indicates what I have said previously, that the allocation of a removal licence depends upon the co-operation of the three parties—the licensing planning authority, the trade and the justices responsible for the allocation of licences in the overspill area. Therefore, I think it is very important that good will and co-operation should be maintained.

Before this obligation is placed upon the justices, the Minister of Housing has to be satisfied that the area complies with the definition of an overspill area, which is in subsection (2) of the clause. Now this is an important point, which I would ask the noble Earl to consider. Paragraphs (a) and (b) in subsection (1) are based upon the provisions of Section 58 (2) of the Licensing Act, 1953, which restricts the powers of the justices to refuse the removal of a licence in a licensing planning area, an area defined by the Secretary of State, which has suffered extensive war damage. Now my proposed new clause endeavours to apply the principle that was applied to areas which had suffered extensive war damage, to areas which are subjected to slum clearance, where the licences are put in suspense.

Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) maintains the discretion of the justices to the proper extent of considering whether there is a need for the licensed premises, having regard to the needs of the licensing district as a whole. I would emphasise this point. It does not take away the power of the licensing justices in the overspill area to refuse a removal licence, if the needs of the district are already met by the existing licences. The licensing justices have still to consider the position as a whole in their licensing area. But where it would restrict their power is here; it would restrict their powers to give a licence, whether small, moderate or large, to a new applicant while there are these licences in suspense in an overspill area—licences in suspense which have been the subject, as I have previously said, of a comprehensive planning agreement which has been of considerable value.

While I have emphasised the case of Manchester, I am advised that it is not a problem only for Manchester. I am advised that, for example, Wolverhampton is likely to be confronted with the same problem, and I rather thought that my second Amendment was necessary in order to make for the amicable working of an arrangement which, I am sure, is well known in certain quarters. I hope the Minister will be able to help me in regard to this matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 16, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Burden.)

EARL BATHURST

In the noble Lord's last Amendment I accepted, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that we grant that no geographical limitations are necessary for the removal of a licence from one set of premises to another, but, in spite of what the noble Lord has told us, we believe that his second Amendment would mean that, due to his complex juggling with the town and country planning laws and regulations as they exist, the receiving licensing justices and the populations, too, in those receiving areas, would be bound to accept the owner of a removal licence, with no chance of objection and with no chance of considering any local applicants or interests for that particular licence. We believe—in fact, there is no doubt—that the noble Lord's Amendment would remove the discretion of the receiving licensing justices. It would be most complicated to work, as I fancy your Lordships will appreciate from what the noble Lord has said, with re- gard to the planning regulations, and we believe that there would probably be so few cases that such complicated regulations would not be needed.

I will certainly agree with the noble Lord that, if the removals are amicably settled in the new receiving areas under the existing legislation, with the Amendment that the noble Lord moved first, I do not think there wild be any difficulty. The difficulty arises when the removals may not be so amicable, and, if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, we believe unfairness would be caused in the receiving areas.

LORD BURDEN

I should be the last one to want any measure of unfairness, but I see the point made by the noble Earl. It all depends upon the good will of the receiving licensing justices, if I may put it in that way. I suppose it would be wrong to assume at the outset —and I take it that that is the Government's case—that the receiving justices would be obstructive and would not be willing to consider the case of a removal licence from the area from which the overspill population came. But after all, I think there is something to be said for those licences which have been operative in the slum clearance areas—a similar sort of licence for the population which has transferred itself to the new area. However, I see that the noble Earl is reluctant to put a measure of compulsion—that is what it comes to—upon the justices responsible for the overspill area, and I am afraid that I must, in those circumstances, leave it to both parties to negotiate their problems in a spirit of good will and co-operation, in order that the scheme which is working now, and will be working, may be successful. In those circumstances, thanking the noble Earl for his points and for his acceptance of the first Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 17 to insert the following new Clause.

New provisions for protection of young persons

".—(1) Subject to section twenty of this Act, in licensed premises the holder of the licence or his servant shall not knowingly sell intoxicating liquor to a person under eighteen, or knowingly allow a person under eighteen to consume intoxicating liquor in a bar, nor shall the holder of the licence knowingly allow any person to sell intoxicating liquor to a person under eighteen.

(2) A person under eighteen shall not in Licensed premises buy or attempt to buy intoxicating liquor, nor consume intoxicating liquor in a bar.

(3) No person shall buy or attempt to buy intoxicating liquor for consumption in a bar in licensed premises by a person under eighteen.

(4) In the foregoing subsections, and in sections one hundred and twenty-six and one hundred and twenty-seven of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which contain other provisions for the protection of children and young persons), references to a bar shall not apply to a bar at any time when it is, as is usual in the premises in question, set apart for the service of table meals and not used for the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor otherwise than to persons having table meals there and for consumption by such a person having table meals there and for consumption by such a person as an ancillary to his meal; and nothing in subsection (1) or (2) above shall prohibit the sale to or purchase by a person who has attained the age of sixteen of beer, porter, cider or perry for consumption at a meal in a part of the premises usually set apart for the service of meals which is not a bar or in a bar at any such time as aforesaid.

(5) The holder of the licence or his servant shall not knowingly deliver, nor shall the holder of the licence knowingly allow any person to deliver, to a person under eighteen intoxicating liquor sold in licensed premises for consumption off the premises, except where the delivery is made at the residence or working place of the purchaser, nor shall any person knowingly send a person under eighteen for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquor sold or to be sold as aforesaid from the licensed premises or other premises from which the liquor is delivered in pursuance of the sale:

Provided that this subsection shall not apply where the person under eighteen is a member of the licence holder's family or his servant or apprentice and is employed as a messenger to deliver intoxicating liquor.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section (other than an offence under subsection (2)) shall be liable on a first conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds and on a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds; and on a person's second or subsequent conviction of such an offence the court may, if the offence was committed by him as the holder of a justices' licence, order that he shall forfeit the licence.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) of this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

(8) Where a justices' licence is forfeited under subsection (6) above, justices of the peace shall have the like power to make a protection order under subsection (3) of section twenty-three of the Licensing Act. 1953, as they have in a case falling within that subsection, and the provisions relating to transfers of licences shall apply accordingly.

(9) In subsection (1) of section one hundred and twenty-seven of the Licensing Act, 1953 (under which the holder of a justices' licence is guilty of an offence if a person under eighteen is employed in a bar of licensed premises when the bar is open for the sale or consumption of liquor), the word "justices'" shall be omitted.

(10) Subsections (1) to (3) and subsection (9) above (but not subsection (4)) shall apply in relation to any canteen (within the meaning of the Licensing (Seamen's Canteens) Act, 1954) in respect of which a licence is in force under that Act as if the canteen were licensed premises, but with the substitution for any reference to a bar of a reference to the canteen; and in subsection (6) above the references to a justices' licence shall accordingly include a licence under that Act.

(11) For the purposes of subsection (6) above a conviction of an offence under section one hundred and twenty-eight or subsection (1). (4) or (5) of section one hundred and twenty-nine of the Licensing Act, 1953 (or under any of those enactments as applied by the Licensing (Seamen's Canteens) Act, 1954, or by the Occasional Licences and Young Persons Act, 1956) shall be taken into account in the same way as a conviction of an offence under this section other than an offence under subsection (2)."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28, 60, 77 and 78 and it deals with another point on which I gave notice at Second Reading, and that is to extend the present prohibition of sales of liquor to persons under 18 to cover sales for consumption of sales on the premises. The clause also has the effect, by the use of the words "licensed premies" in subsection (1) and elsewhere, of applying prohibition to premises which have a retail excise licence only, as well as those with a justices' licence. The practical effect is to extend the under-18 prohibition to the bars of theatres, where drink may be sold under excise licence only. This repairs a no doubt unintentional omission of the present law, for there can be no logical reason for prohibiting the sale of drink to a young person in the bar of licensed premises but allowing it in a theatre bar.

The other kind of excise licence affected is the occasional licence. The sale of drink to young persons under an occasional licence, at a race meeting or a dance or the like, is already prohibited by the Occasional Licences and Young Persons Act, 1956, which the last of the above Amendments consequentially repeals since the prohibition is now embodied in the new clause. For the rest, the opportunity has been taken to consolidate in the new clause the provisions of the existing law and the Bill about the sale of drink to young persons. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 17, insert the said new clause. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18 [Penalty for unauthorised sales of intoxicating liquor]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 36, leave out subsections (4) to (8)—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19 [Miscellaneous relaxations of laws as to licensed premises]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 33, leave out subsection (1). —(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 [Liqueur chocolates]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 31, after ("supply") insert ("purchase, delivery").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21:

Conditions for supply of intoxicating liquor by clubs

21.—(l) No intoxicating liquor shall on any club premises be supplied by or on behalf of the club to a member or guest, unless the club is registered under this Act in respect of those premises or the liquor is supplied under the authority of a justices' licence held by the club for the premises.

A person supplying or authorising the supply of intoxicating liquor in contravention of this subsection shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, or to both.

(2) No intoxicating liquor shall, on any club premises in respect of which the club is registered, be supplied by or on behalf of the club for consumption off the premises except to a member in person.

6.3 p.m.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, in subsection (1), to add to the first paragraph: and no intoxicating liquor shall be supplied at any time to any person under eighteen years of age in any club to which this section applies. The noble Lord said: I am sure your Lordships are rather surprised to find this Amendment on the Order Paper following the new clause we have just carried. This Bill shows a great interest in young people. It makes provisions in various ways to try to safeguard all those under 18. A young person under 18 may not be served in a public house and may not be served at off-licence premises; but here they may be served in a club. The temperance movement, —and on this issue I am speaking on their behalf, as well as on my own personal behalf—do not understand this differentiation.

I do not think it necessary to give many figures, but I ought to mention one or two which have been sent to me to show how important it is to have provision in all legislation to safeguard the youth of both sexes. I have here a paragraph headed "Increased drunkenness amongst young people". It states: Concern is expressed at the increase in convictions of males under 18 for drunkenness; 39 per cent. higher in 1960 than 1959, girls nearly 30 per cent.; a combined total of 38 per cent. Another disturbing feature is the increase in the number of convictions concerning purchase and attempted purchase of intoxicating liquor. Males under 18, increase of 44 per cent.; females under 18, an increase of 68 per cent.; combined increase of 48 per cent. This means that young people who have hardly left school are indulging more and more in the drinking habit. Just one other quotation—it comes from the Chief of Police of the County Borough of Wallasey: A disturbing factor is that no fewer than four youths of 16 years and twelve of 17 years were before the courts on charges of drunkenness. I am conscious of the fact that some of these youngsters obtain their liquor from 'out-door' departments or off-licences; also from registered clubs, particularly those organising dances, but I do ask every licensee to assist in preventing this type of offence by making sure that anyone served on his premises is at least 18 years of age. There we are—different directions, but the same support; to take in every precaution to safeguard those under 18.

The only argument worth mentioning that I can find, which was used in another place, is that clubs are so like home; that clubs are home from home; they differ so much from pubs; that pubs are anything but that. That is the argument. I do not accept that. Clubs can be pleasant places over a period, but to suggest that what is right in the home is right in a club because a club is so much like a home is, to me, a wrong type of reasoning. In the home one has parental control. One of the Members of Parliament to intervene told us about a father giving a glass of sherry to his daughter of 19. Well, who could object to a father doing that in his home? Maybe the same father would do it in a club. He may not understand that the temperance movement is against this; and so is the Government, which has shown a real interest in those under 18.

The Lord Chancellor himself has just moved a comprehensive clause which satisfies the temperance movement in every sense. We are pleased with the provisions made in that clause for those under 18 with regard to "off-licence" and "on-licence" premises, but we are unable to understand why the Government are not prepared to do it in clubs, because we do not understand or accept the argument that a club is like a home—a home from home. We hope that after further consideration, this Amendment may be accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 7, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

EARL BATHURST

I would ask the noble Lord and all your Lordships to bear in mind that we are dealing with two quite different types of clubs: on the one hand, the respectable bona fide club, which will receive a registration under this Bill; on the other, the undesirable, if not illegal, club, which will disappear as a result of Part III of this Bill. I do not believe that what the noble Lord has just been saying when moving his Amendment will apply in the cases of young people. Her Majesty's Government are indeed concerned with the increased drinking by young people but what the noble Lord did not mention is that the Bill increases the penalties for selling drink to persons under 18 in the public houses. He did mention that under the Amendment which your Lordships have now passed it prohibits off-sales to persons under 18.

The noble Lord argues that it is logical as well as desirable to go on and deal with the supply of drinks to young persons in clubs—and I am now talking of bona fide clubs. The noble Lord says that some clubs already have in their rules a prohibition on the supply of drink to persons under eighteen. That is so. But the comparison between public houses, on the one hand, and the clubs, on the other, is not an apt comparison; and I think that the noble Lord himself has already given your Lordships good reasons why that is not an apt comparison. There is nothing to prevent any club which so wishes from continuing to prohibit or restrict the supply of drink to a young person. A club of this kind is perfectly capable of making and enforcing its own rules on this matter, without the need for legislative intervention. I have already said that respectable clubs only will survive in future. Is Parliament really to say what a parent or a friend shall do as regards a respectable club for a young person who is perfectly legally in that club?

The prohibition which the noble Lord would like to see would be very difficult to enforce in the absence of police right of entry into clubs. The police cannot enter a club at will, and Her Majesty's Government could not accept any suggestion that they should be able to do so. This being so, it would be almost impossible to prove the commission of an offence, and it is undesirable at any time to introduce into the law a provision which cannot be effectively enforced. This applies particularly in the present context which the noble Lord has mentioned, where the law is being strengthened and being made more enforceable in other respects. We do not believe that the absence of this provision will, in fact, increase drinking among young people. I would, above all, ask your Lordships to bear in mind that the undesirable, if not illegal, drinking clubs will no longer exist, due to the later provisions in Part III of this Bill. I ask your Lordships to reject the noble Lord's Amendment—or it may be that I have assured the noble Lord that his Amendment is not necessary.

LORD DENNING

May I say a word upon this point? Certainly clubs can and should be divided into two, the bona fide club, the members' club, and the underhand proprietary club. They are of an entirely different nature. Although it may be that the Amendment is too wide in referring to all clubs, I would have suggested that certainly proprietary clubs, which are very much on the same level as an ordinary licensed house, could be made subject to the prohibition that there should be no sale of liquor to children under eighteen. Indeed, there is a later Amendment to suggest that the police should have a right of entry into proprietary clubs for that very reason. It is all very well to say that undesirable clubs will be blotted out by Part III. I venture to doubt whether that will be so. Proprietary clubs will remain; they will require strict supervision, and I suggest that it would be a very desirable Amendment to put them on the same footing as ordinary licensed houses in the other Parts of the Act to protect people under eighteen. Without going to the full extent of this Amendment, I should like to see some provision at a later stage to give some protection in respect of proprietary clubs.

EARL BATHURST

With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, I am sure the majority of those proprietary clubs will not be eligible for registration owing to their rules, and so forth. Those proprietary clubs which are decent and proper places will have to obtain a licence in exactly the same way as a public house obtains a licence, and will therefore have all the rules and regulations applicable to a public house, which will be enforceable by entry of the police. I assure the noble and learned Lord that when we get on to the club provisions he will see that in fact those provisions which he has just mentioned are all right.

BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON

May I ask one question of the noble Earl? In all this effort to protect young men or women under eighteen, is it not extremely difficult at times to determine who is a boy under eighteen?—because so many boys under eighteen may be putting themselves up as being twenty or 25. When a boy under eighteen comes in and calls for a drink I wonder whether anybody can decide whether he is under eighteen. I do not know whether that is relevant to the present discussion.

EARL BATHURST

The term "knowingly" is used as a safeguard for the public house keeper, or of course for the club proprietor in the case that I have just mentioned to the noble and learned Lord. That is a well-known term in licensing legislation. It is the public house keeper or barman's responsibility to make quite certain of the age of the person to whom he sells. If he is in doubt he must ask. If he is told a lie, the word "knowingly" is a defence, but it is the responsibility of that publican to know the age of the person to whom he sells.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

May I in the first place thank the noble Earl for his very kind, clear, cogent, convincing arguments. He has not quite taken me with him all the way. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has already said was in my mind before he said it. I think I will not press this Amendment to-night, but I may reconsider and frame a different Amendment for Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22:

Qualifications for registration

22.—

(3) Any renewal of a registration certificate shall be for one year from the expiration of the period for which the certificate was issued or last renewed, except that on the second or any subsequent renewal the certificate may, if the court thinks fit, be renewed for such number of years (not exceeding ten) from the expiration of that period as may be requested in the application for renewal or for any less number of years.

(7) A club shall be qualified to receive a registration certificate for any premises (whether in the first instance or by way of renewal), only if no arrangements are, or are intended to be, made— (b) for any person directly or indirectly to derive any pecuniary benefit from the supply of intoxicating liquor by or on behalf of the club to members or guests, apart from any benefit accruing to the club as a whole and apart also from any benefit which a person derives indirectly by reason of the supply giving rise or contributing to a general gain from the carrying on of the club.

6.19 p.m.

BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON

As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has not arrived, may I venture to say this quite briefly to your Lordships? A great deal of trouble has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in this Bill in controlling the registration of clubs. A registration certificate now shall have effect for twelve months and a renewal shall be for one year. The Government now leap to such magnanimity that they propose, if the court thinks fit, to let that renewal run up to ten years. Surely we have jumped from the frying pan into the fire. Five years is bad enough, but in ten years what cannot happen? Your Lordships know perfectly well what goes on in these clubs. They may keep themselves clear from the police under these new licensing hours; but you know what occurs, how often they break the law, and I would beg your Lordships to consider reducing that term to five years instead of ten. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 19, leave out ("ten") and insert ("five").—(Baroness Ravensdale of Kedleston.)

EARL BATHURST

Again I must ask the noble Baroness and your Lordships to remember that there are two types of club—the bona fide club, which would be a club which will most likely receive a ten-year registration from the magistrates, and the other sort, the proprietary club which has a sporting chance of receiving no permission from the magistrate to exist at all.

I do not think I need go into this Amendment in great detail. It was gone into at great length in another place. I assure the noble Baroness that the club which she has in mind—the illegal club, as it will be under this Bill—will not be able to exist. Only the sort of club which is a right and proper place will receive a ten-year registration. Should there be any doubt at all, full discretion is left with the magistrates to decide for how long the registration should be allowed. If that club does not conduct itself according to the most stringent regulations under this Bill, it can of course be closed down effectively, which has not been the case up till now.

BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON

I thank the noble Earl. I personally still think that five years for any club, respectable or not, is safer than ten years. However, I will ask for permission to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

This is a small Amendment, which I hope puts into effect what is Her Majesty's Government's intention. The difficulty about the phrase "two days" is that I rather think there is judicial authority on this sort of expression, and that it would result in something like the following situation. Supposing one applied to become a member of one of these clubs on a Tuesday and the phrase "at least two days" remained in the Bill, it might be considered by the courts that two clear days should elapse before one could become a member. Therefore, having applied on Tuesday one would have to wait all Wednesday and all Thursday, until one could become a member on Friday. Heretofore, I do not think there has been any sanctity in the length of time of 48 hours, but none the less 48 hours has been the time. I would therefore suggest to your Lordships that this should be continued and that instead of "two days" there should be inserted "forty-eight hours", which would make quite clear the length of time which one would have to wait before becoming a member. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 34, leave out ("two days") and insert ("forty-eight hours").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

EARL BATHURST

With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I hope that I shall convince him that the effect of his Amendment is exactly the opposite way round. I must admit that I was convinced by his Amendment at first, but I hope to show your Lordships that in fact our wording in the clause is the correct wording. Cause 22 (5) provides that the rules of a club must require an interval of two days between application for membership and admission to any of the privileges of membership. This Amendment would make that interval 48 hours. The similar provision in the present law, which is Section 144, is in terms of 48 hours. The change to two days was made deliberately to make enforcement easier.

The effect of making the interval 48 hours rather than two days can best be seen by considering an example. Suppose a man applies for membership of a club at 7 p.m. on a Friday, the 48 hours' interval which the noble Viscount would like expires at 7 p.m. on Sunday and the two days interval (in effect two clear days) ends five hours later at midnight. If the man is found paying for a drink in the club at noon on Sunday the question of a breach of the club rules arises —action can be taken against the club under Clause 23. The club records will show that he applied for membership on Friday but are most unlikely to show the time of day at which he applied; and I think it would be difficult to see that club registrars or secretaries put down an accurate time for the application. It would be difficult to prove that that man applied later than noon on Friday, and that there was therefore a breach of the 48 hours' rule. The breach of the two days rule would, however, be completely clear, and much easier to enforce. Therefore, my objection to my noble friend's Amendment is that, in practice, it allows clubs to cut the interval to as little as 36 hours with impunity. I hope that I have made myself clear to my noble friend.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I thank my noble friend for that explanation. The fact is, however, that it appears that Her Majesty's Government's intention is to change this long-sanctioned 48 hours. If that is the case I ask for permission to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.27 p.m.

BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON

I ask your Lordships to consider this Amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. Its effect is that a club shall not be qualified to receive a registration certificate in relation to any premises having more than one hostess for every twenty tables. Your Lordships know perfectly well what goes on. I know what the noble Earl has said about these clubs, and of the definite desire to curtail and control them. If we bring in this proviso and thus prevent a hostess having fewer than twenty tables to look after, we might reduce the terrible evil that these women do in these clubs. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 33, line 6, at end insert— ("() A club shall not be qualified to receive a registration certificate for any premises if at those premises there are employed, at any time, more than one "hostess" for every twenty tables used for eating or drinking at those prenlises.")—(Baroness Ravensdale of Kedleston.)

EARL BATHURST

I must again ask the noble Baroness to bear in mind what I said about reputable and responsible clubs as opposed to those that are irreputable and will probaby be illegal when this Bill comes into force. The whole concept of "hostess" as the noble Baroness and her noble friends understand it seems quite incompatible with the type of club that will qualify for registration—namely, the club which is run by and for the members, with a proper constitutionally elected committee. Accordingly, this Amendment might, if anything, carry the implication that, notwithstanding the incompatibility of hostesses with a club being a genuine members' club, a club may nevertheless qualify for a registration certificate provided that the proportion of 'hostesses in that club does not exceed that of one to twenty tables as laid down in the Amendment. I am quite certain that that would not be the effect that the noble Baroness would wish. This would be unfortunate from the point of view of the general principles laid down in Part III of the Bill, as well as from the point of view of the noble Baroness on the matter. Secondly, if the object of the Amendment is to ensure that hostesses of an undesirable kind are not employed in clubs, this will not be achieved merely by the limitation of their number. In fact, there are already better safeguards in the Bill against hostesses of an undesirable kind.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Where?

EARL BATHURST

I have already mentioned to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord that if such clubs carry on undesirable practices they will not qualify for registration. Therefore, they will be outside the law. Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 23 have the effect that objection may be made to the issue or renewal of a registration certificate, or an application may be made for the cancellation of an existing certificate, on the ground, among others, that the club premises are habitually used as a resort of prostitutes. That is yet another safeguard which I was going to mention had the noble Viscount not intervened just at that moment.

To sum up, the night clubs which at present employ hostesses are unlikely to qualify for registration certificates in any case; and, in so far as the Amendment may suggest that hostesses are compatible with the usual kind of members' club, this would be mast unfortunate. A limitation on the number of hostesses is not in itself any guarantee that a club, or the hostesses, may be respectable. The Bill already contains safeguards, which I have described, against the undesirable practices that may arise. So I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Amendment on the grounds that it would not be effective to meet the case which she requires it to meet. But I do assure her that there are safeguards in Part III of this Bill, which we believe will do so.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Before the noble Baroness is enticed into withdrawing this Amendment, perhaps some of us on this side might have a word about it. There is one thing for which we are very grateful, and that is that the noble Baroness has been putting down Amendments of her own, and in conjunction with my noble friend Lord Stonham, who unfortunately cannot be here tonight, for the purpose of getting a great improvement, if possible, in the standards of these clubs.

When one reverts to the discussions which have taken place, in another place and in your Lordships' House on the earlier Bill, when we were dealing with street offences, one knows how difficult this position.is in many of the clubs. I should thaw thought that a better answer would have been available as to what the Government intended to do to improve the situation than merely what is in this Bill. I do not gather from what the noble Earl has said that anything very effective is going to be done to improve the present situation; and the growth of these undesirable types of club in the West End of London—a matter which was referred to, I think, on Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Stonham—is really rather frightening. It does not seem to me that the Government are taking sufficient steps in this Bill to meet that situation.

I am not saying, and I do not suppose the noble Baroness, Lady Ravensdale, would say, that we can guarantee that this particular Amendment is going to do everything that we want—not by any means. I have listened carefully to the noble Earl (he will forgive me if I have misunderstood him) but if there is anything in the argument that a different number of tables, 15 or 20, might do something to improve things, then all I can say is that I know quite well that in a club of any kind, whether it is registered or not, anything which increases the number of ladies who will act as hostesses—not as waitresses, but as hostesses: danding and ordering the drinks; and ordering them ad lib. pretty often—will have a great effect upon the partners who dance with them. I do not think that the Government are taking this matter quite seriously enough. I should like to say to the noble Baroness that I feel grateful to her for the stand she has taken in this matter. It always wants a great deal of courage to take up this kind of question: people look at you askance, and that kind of thing. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for taking it up, and I hope that the Government will be able to give a better answer than we have just had.

6.36 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

May I say this to the noble Viscount?—because I am very anxious to take him with us on our intentions. What I suggest is that when we have gone through the various club provisions he should examine this problem again. From what has been brought to my knowledge, I should myself consider that the night club that goes in for hostesses—and that is really the kind of club we have in mind—would have extraordinarily little chance of registration when this Bill becomes law. One could quite imagine (the noble Viscount and I know of such gatherings all over the country) dance clubs which are the most harmless and admirable gatherings of young people; but they are real clubs. I should have thought that the appearance of hostesses was almost instantly concomitant with the fact that the club concerned was a proprietary club. You have someone in the background, as the noble Viscount has described, who puts the girls forward to attract men to order more drink. I should have thought—and I should like us all just to consider this again—that that is almost entirely the place where there is a proprietor and where the essentials of a club for our purposes, with the members controlling the liquor, and not somebody who is going to make a profit out of it, are entirely absent. My own view, therefore, is that it is as safe as it can ever be in a prognosis to say that this type of club, the club that puts forward hostesses, would not obtain a registration certificate under Clause 22. I believe that the night clubs will recognise that they will have to obtain a justices' licence if they are going to carry on.

I am always anxious to consider doubts from the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition—and, indeed, from my noble friend Lady Ravensdale—and I will consider the point he has made. But I would suggest that, when we have further considered the position, and any other doubts that may be expressed on the club part of the Bill, the noble Viscount should consider this special problem in the light of our examination of the Bill. It is certainly not our desire to make it easy for the kind of clubs that the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount have described. I believe we are right—I certainly hope we are right —in feeling that they will be driven out of the club field altogether. Having said that, I would add that I will willingly consider the problem, and I will ask Mr. Butler to consider it, too, in view of what the noble Viscount has said.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

May I just point out that even if you are going to restrict these dance hostesses, you cannot prevent a great increase in the number of waitresses in these clubs. What is to stop a waitress from doing the job of a dance hostess? I rather think that you would probably have a great number of men waiters replaced by waitresses. This is an extremely hard thing for which to legislate, because if a club really wants to get round the law it can do so by employing waitresses who are not always waitresses—I mean, waitresses who behave as dance hostesses, and perhaps behave as they should not. It is an extremely difficult thing to legislate for.

LORD SILKIN

The noble Viscount has just mentioned one of the methods by which this can be evaded, and, of course, there are many others. But I notice that neither the noble Earl who answered, nor the noble and learned Viscount, said anything about the merits of this Amendment. If it is conceded that it is undesirable to have an unduly large number of hostesses at these clubs —and we know that the main purpose behind them might well be to induce clients to consume more liquor—and we are told that the matter will be looked at from that angle, then I think, by all means, the noble Lady will be glad to look at it again in relation to the whole of the provisions concerning clubs in the Bill. But if the Government would also look at it in relation to the question of the undesirability of having an unduly large number of hostesses, and of methods by which legislation can be evaded, as the noble Viscount pointed out, then I think we have gained something by this Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The only reason I did not deal with the point was that I was rather starting from the terminus a quo that, where you had hostesses, you probably had not a bôna fide club. That was the only reason I did not deal with the actual point, but I will consider it. Noble Lords know that I cannot give any commitment on the matter, but I will certainly consider it, because, as I say, we are most anxious that the Bill should deal with the problem.

LORD OGMORE

I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount would consider this point too. I am not sure that, if any provision like this remains in the Bill, it would not do more harm than good, because I am very surprised to learn that there might be hostesses in a club of this kind. If one reads the provisions of Clause 22 and sees the sort of club the clause envisages, one wonders what hostesses are doing there. That is what I cannot understand. Presumably the magistrates will have to decide this question; they will have to decide whether they are going to give a club a registration certificate or, in certain cases, whether they are going to remove one. The magistrates will see this provision; and what will the average magistrate think? He will probably say, "Parliament evidently believes that there should be some hostesses there, because it provides for a maximum number of hostesses". I think that is quite outside the whole idea of a club as envisaged in Clause 22. I should like the noble and learned Viscount—I am sure he has the point in mind, because he has indicated that he has—to feel that some of us, at any rate, are with him on this. I should have thought it was a rather dangerous Amendment to accept.

EARL BATHURST

With respect to the noble Lord, that is one of the reasons I pointed out earlier, and really the reason why my noble and learned friend and myself are not keen on this Amendment. I tried to point that out to the noble Lady without causing any offence to her, but that is the basic reason why we do not wish to accept this particular Amendment.

BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON

I am not in the least convinced by the noble Earl's reply, but I am grateful for the support of the noble Viscount opposite. I will withdraw this Amendment provided only the noble and learned Viscount will reconsider it, and put this point to the Home Secretary in the other place, because I know the Government are trying to do their best. If I may hope for that, I will withdraw the Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will certainly do that. But I should like to point out again to my noble friend Lady Ravensdale of Kedleston that we are really asking for something higher than she is. We are asking that hostesses and a club should really be considered as incompatible; that is our approach. But, subject to that, I want to make clear to my noble friend that I was not seeking anything lower in the scale than she wanted, but really something higher. Of course I will consider her point.

BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON

I thank the noble Viscount.

LORD STONHAM

I apologise to the Committee for the fact that, through circumstances completely beyond my control, I was delayed, and I certainly do not wish to enter into the debate now. I understand that the noble and learned Viscount has given an assurance that he will write to my noble friend Lady Ravensdale of Kedleston on this point. As he will be aware, my name has also been mentioned, and I should be grateful if he would also write to me. I hope it will be possible for us to hear something of the Government's intentions before the Report stage, so that, if necessary, we may table this or another somewhat similar Amendment on Report stage.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Certainly I will do that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.47 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

This is intended to be a drafting Amendment only: that is to say, the intention of this Amendment is to put into what I hope is clearer language what at present seems to me to be somewhat vague and unclear. In matters of language I do not think one needs a great deal of advocacy. I put it forward in good faith, in the hope that it will improve the language of the Bill and will make explicable what at present I find exceedingly difficult to understand. If the noble and learned Viscount, who I understand is going to deal with this Amendment, does not like it, I am perfectly willing to withdraw it; but I hope he will think that it is an improvement, or at any rate is worthy of consideration. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 33, line 16, leave out from ("guests") to ("from") in line 20 and to insert: provided that any profit derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor may form part of the general gain from the carrying on of the club and may form part of any pecuniary benefit accruing to the club as a whole and to any person deriving benefit").—(Lord Silkin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am anxious to deal with this matter sympathetically, because I understand that it has the legal support not only of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but also of some other lawyers; and individually and collectively I respect the noble Lord's opinion and the opinions of others. Paragraph (b) is concerned with the application of the bar receipts in a club. It provides, in effect, that, with two exceptions, no person shall derive any benefit from those receipts. The exceptions are, first, that the club as a whole may benefit; secondly, that where the receipts are paid into the general funds of the club, a person may derive a benefit from those funds even though that benefit is made possible only by the bar receipts. It was represented to us, first, that it was not clear that "general gain" might be made up in part or in whole of the bar profits; and secondly, that where without the bar profits a club would show a loss, a benefit derived from the general gain was derived directly from the bar profits, and so—although this was not the Government's intention—was prohibited by the paragraph.

In reply to the first of these points, it can be said that the words "apart from" make it clear that what follows is an exception to the general rule, and that the general rule is concerned with "any pecuniary benefit from the supply of liquor". The words "giving rise or contributing to a general gain" make it clear that both the case of the bar profits preventing a general deficit, and the case of the bar profits adding to a general surplus, are covered.

In reply to the other point that he made, I would say that any benefit derived from a general fund made up of two or more particular funds is derived indirectly from each of the funds. There is also this difficulty about the Amendment: it is not properly a proviso to the first part of the paragraph. The words any profit derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor may form part of the general gain appear to be a statement of an accountancy principle. "Sale" is the wrong word to use, as there may well be no sales at all in most clubs. The words any person deriving benefit appear to be left in the air.

I have stated this, not in any desire to be argumentative, but simply so that the noble Lord can have a chance of considering the point, about which my colleagues and I were worried when we were considering it. I understand that neither the Law Society nor the noble Lord has any quarrel with the clause, but they doubt if it is effective to carry out our policy, I will gladly have another look at it and if any bright ideas strike me or those working with me, I will let the noble Lord know before the Report stage.

LORD SILKIN

The noble and learned Viscount has let the cat out of the bag. The Amendment has been suggested to me by the Law Society, a body which, unlike any other body interested in this Bill, has no axe to grind at all. It is wholly concerned that the wording in the Bill should be as clear as possible. This applies to the other Amendments which I am going to move. I gladly withdraw the Amendment in the light of what the noble and learned Viscount has said.

LORD HAWKE

Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, would it be possible to construe the clause in such a way that any person engaged in the liquor trade selling liquor to a club would satisfy this definition, and thereby invalidate a club applying for a licence?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not think so, but I will consider the point. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his help.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD STONHAM

Subsection (7) of this clause provides that a club may be registered if no arrangements are made for any person directly or indirectly to derive any pecuniary benefit from the supply of intoxicating liquor by or on behalf of the club …". The position with the proprietary club is that in many of them the proprietor, financially, is the club. The whole intention of the Bill, and particularly of Clause 22, is to ensure that the supply of liquor shall be completely under the control and for the benefit of club members. The word "club" in paragraph (b) makes it possible for a proprietor to benefit from the sale of liquor, because often he owns and runs the club, and the membership is fictitious, certainly purely nominal. There are many ways in which a proprietor can indirectly benefit from the sale of drink—for instance, he can charge an abnormally high rent. I think that that kind of thing could be avoided if we substituted the word "members" for "club" in this paragraph, and once more make it clear that the supplying of intoxicating liquor can be only for the benefit of the members. It seems to me that this Amendment is in keeping with the general intentions of the Bill and I hope, therefore, that it will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 17, leave out ("club") and insert ("members").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD DENNING

The word "club" is not defined in this Bill at all. In law there are two kinds of club, of entirely different natures. There is the members' club, in which the property belongs jointly to all the members, though it may be held by trustees for their benefit, and the proprietary club, in which the property belongs to the proprietor. This clause says that there should be no profit from the supply of intoxicating liquor except in so far as it goes to the club as a whole. If you are speaking of a proprietary club, that means the proprietor as a whole; in other words, the proprietor would get the benefit. If, as I gather from earlier discussions, members' clubs are to survive and proprietary clubs are to go away, it is not done by this Bill. Unless it is made clear that the proprietor does not get anything in the case of a proprietary club, apart from any benefit that accrues to the members, we are leaving a loophole whereby the proprietor can get a benefit. I support this Amendment, as it clears away any ambiguity.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

May I say at once that there is no difference between us at all about what we want to do. The last thing that the Government wish to do is to benefit the proprietor in the way the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and my noble and learned friend Lord Denning have suggested. If it is Lord Stonham's purpose in substituting "members" for "club" to exclude any possibility that the words "benefit accruing to the club as a whole" at line 17 and the words "benefit of the club as a whole" at line 30 might otherwise be read as including any benefit which the proprietor derives in the case of a proprietary club, my view is—and I ask your Lordships to consider it—that the answer is that it is perfectly clear from the context that the words "club as a whole" cannot be so construed. Any pecuniary benefit which the proprietor of such club derives from the supply of intoxicating liquor is either caught by the opening words of paragraph (b) of subsection (7) of Clause 22 as if it accrues to him as a benefit which he derives indirectly by reason of the supply contributing to a general gain from the carrying on of the club, or it is caught by the closing words of that paragraph. I have not been able to see any justification for saying that there is ambiguity about the words "club as a whole". The word "club" was carefully chosen in these provisions to express the required meaning and is used in the same sense as in other provisions of the Bill. To alter it in these two places would merely cause confusion and would be undesirable for the reasons that I have given.

If I may put these objections to changing the wording once again, I would point out that the term "club" is used extensively in Part III and in the Schedules, and if a change is to be made here, that will throw doubt on the meaning of the term elsewhere. Many members' clubs are incorporated—for example, the clubs registered with the Registrar of Friendly Societies under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893—and in the case of incorporated clubs the term "club" is clearly more appropriate to members. I am sure that both noble Lords will give consideration to this matter. I do not know that I need trouble the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, with legal references, but I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Denning is never troubled by legal references and always adorns any legal reference that is sent to him by improving it. I would ask my noble and learned friend to consider the definition of Sir John Latham in Bennett v. Cooper, which is reported in 76 Commonwealth Law Reports at page 570. He defined a club as: a voluntary association of a number of persons meeting together for purposes mainly social, each contributing a certain sum either to a common fund for the benefit of the members or to a particular individual for his own benefit. Then my noble and learned friend might have a passing glance at Lord Lindsay's judgment in Wise v. Perpetual Trustee Company, which he will remember is in 1903 Appeal Cases, page 149. If he will also look at Halsbury's Laws of England, the Third Edition, Volume 5, at page 52, he will find it gives this definition: A club may be defined as a society of persons associated together for social intercourse, for the promotion of politics, sport, arts and literature or for any purpose except the acquisition of gain. The association must be private and must have some clement of permanence. The purpose of social intercourse should be combined with any other purpose, subject to the exception named. The sense in which "club" is used in both textbooks and authorities is generally the same, and I think we carry that general idea with us. But in view of the different kinds of clubs, all of which may be entirely respectable, it would be difficult to insert a definition in that sense into the Bill. What we are trying to do is to lay down clear and severe rules which will prevent what we have called the bogus club from existing. That is the purpose of Part III. I think it can be done without a definition. I quote these examples—and I think they are fair quotations—in order to show what we are talking about when we refer to a club.

As noble Lords will see, I do not share their difficulty as to "club" here possibly meaning the proprietor; and if I did, I would agree to Change it at once. But in view of the fact that both noble Lords are worried about it, I will have a look at it again and see whether, on reflection, I find a difficulty which I have not observed at the moment. I may say to the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition that I hope he will believe this is simply a matter of getting the best drafting. It is not a matter on my part of trying to prevent hitting exactly the same target as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and my noble and learned friend Lord Denning want to hit.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGH

I am obliged to the Lard Chancellor, and I hope that that satisfies the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and my noble friend Lord Stonham for the moment. My anxiety about it is this. It seems to me that the whole of this part of the Bill is to provide machinery for registration of these clubs, many of which have not been registered before, under what conditions they will be carried on, and what complaints can be made against them in order to remove undesirable offences and to secure penalties. Therefore, it seems to me that the definition of a club in those circumstances is vital. While I pay great respect to the legal precedents that learned lawyers like the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, can bring forward, I do not see why you should not make a precedent in order to secure a great moral advance in the State.

LORD DENNING

May I say that it was just because of the difficulty of these precedents, and because in Halsbury it refers to members, on the one hand, and to proprietary clubs of an entirely different nature, on the other—we are dealing with two different kinds of animals—that I thought the courts might find some difficulty and I considered it desirable to make the matter clear. However, in view of what the Lord Chancellor has said, perhaps it can be reconsidered.

LORD STONHAM

The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was quite right to turn half right when he quoted the legal references. For my part, I am sure he would not have quoted any legal references which might have supported the other point of view, although no doubt there may be some. But in his careful explanation, for which I am grateful, he underlined the need for this Amendment, because if a club is not defined, and if, as it were, the definition has to be built up, as I agree it must be, with these various clauses, subsections and Schedules, then it would appear to me desirable that we should be quite explicit in this particular subsection. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that we are dealing with two different animals, and how right he is! Some of the gentlemen (I will not use the word "animals") who own these proprietary clubs are very wealthy people and can afford to pay for the most expensive legal advice. That has for years allowed them, as it were, to laugh at the law, which we know has been inadequate and which we are now amending in my view very well, with a most valuable Bill.

It is the case that a proprietor can own virtually everything about or in a club. If he is going to get registration for that club, then nominally, at least, the members must control the purchase, sale and benefits from any liquor consumed in the club. The law will work in that way only if it is adequately supervised and if any infringement will come to light. One of the weaknesses of the Bill as it now stands is that it will be difficult to get evidence of those infringements—a matter we shall deal with later. I believe that if we insert the word "members" here it will strengthen the Bill, and make it more difficult for it to be evaded. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his assurance that he will have a look at it again. I know it goes no further than that, and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.11 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause: (14) Where the rules of a club make provison for a class of members to have limited rights or no rights of voting in relation to the affairs of the club, any question whether the requirements of paragraph (c) of subsection (6) of this section are satisfied in relation to the club, or whether the rules of the club conform with the Fifth Schedule to this Act, shall if the court determining the question so directs be determined as if the exclusion of that class from voting to the extent provided for by the rules were authorised by the provisions of that Schedule as to voting at general meetings or elections; but the court shall not so direct unless satisfied that the provision so made by the rules is part of a bona fide arrangement made in the interest of the club as a whole and of that class of members for facilitating the membership of persons who are precluded by distance or other circumstances from making full use of the privileges of membership, and is not designed to secure for a minority of the members an unfair measure of control over the affairs of the club.

The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment goes with Amendment No. 67 to the Sixth Schedule. Your Lordships will remember that paragraph 2 (4) of the Fifth Schedule governs the voting at general meetings or elections and provides that all members must be entitled to vote with the exception of the classes of members listed in the proviso. These Amendments provide for the case of country membership. Many clubs have rules which provide that persons living more than a specified distance from the club may become members of the club on payment of a reduced subscription but may not vote.

It is impossible to define country members in such a way that the Amendment could take the form of a simple addition to the classes already in the proviso to paragraph 2(4). The existing classes are such that the proviso does not allow a club so to arrange its affairs that a minority of members run the club for their own benefit. That is vitally important on this Part of the Bill. I ask your Lordships to allow me to repeat that we must not allow a club so to arrange its affairs that a minority of members run the club for their own benefit, because it would be easy to organise a club in London so that the control of the club was in the hands of a very few members, the large majority of the members being non-voting country members. The Amendments, therefore, give the magistrates' courts power to investigate the arrangement and to refuse to register the club unless they are satisfied that the non-voting country membership rule is part of a bona fide arrangement made in the interest of the club as a whole and of that class of members … and is not designed to secure for a minority of the members an unfair measure of control".

I do not think your Lordships are vastly interested in this at the moment. I want to say here that I think I am dealing with a point which is of vital importance from the aspect which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was mentioning. That is, it would be very unfortunate if we allowed clubs to be run by a minority with voting rights and to have a large membership of people without voting rights. That is why we have drafted the Amendment in this way, so that the court must be satisfied that it does not take place. There has been much pressure to add to the classes of non-voting members in the proviso to paragraph 2(4) of the Fifth Schedule; and, indeed, if I may anticipate my Lord Chairman, for the purposes of illustration, the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, goes almost as wide as to say, "all members who do not pay their full annual subscription". Your Lordships see that one can get quite easily to the position that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, feared.

You collect a few people who pay an extra subscription—I mean the nominees of the proprietor—and then you say that no one who does not pay the full subscription shall have voting rights. This is something we must watch and here, perhaps, I am being more "anti-bogus club" than some of your Lordships. At any rate, that is why I attach importance to this Amendment, and I attach great importance to our not falling into that rule of allowing a minority to run the club with a majority of non-voting people. For the reason that these Amendments will help in that direction, I ask your Lordships to accept them as assisting our general purpose. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 47, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD STONHAM

I shall, of course, study what the Lord Chancellor has said. I am most grateful for the introduction of this Amendment in support of what I think is a sound principle, that a minority of members ought not to be allowed to get control and, therefore, vitiate the purposes of the Act. But I do not think there is any argument against the Amendment which we discussed a few moments ago. After all, if members did not pay their subscriptions they would not be members. And if, by some artificial means, the numbers were reduced, the club has to have a minimum of 25 members otherwise it cannot be registered at all. I am quite sure that it would be easy for a proprietor to get 25 cronies, particularly if the club was a successful and expensive one. Although I welcome this provision, I do not think it is a sound argument against the arguments we have previously adduced.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23:

Objections to and cancellations of registration, and disqualification of premises

23.—

(2) An objection to the issue or renewal of a registration certificate may be made on any one or more of the following grounds, that is to say,— (d) that the club is conducted in a disorderly manner or for an unlawful purpose, or that the rules of the club are habitually disregarded as respects the admission of persons to membership or to the privileges of membership or in any other material respect;

7.18 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (2) (d), to leave out "habitually" and insert "frequently". The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Silkin, I beg to move this Amendment, and with it I hope it will suit the convenience of the Committee if we deal with Amendments Nos. 41 and 42, which are on precisely the same point. Paragraph (d) is one of the objections which can be made to the issue or renewal of a registration certificate, and it reads: that the club is conducted in a disorderly manner or for an unlawful purpose, or that the rules of the club are habitually disregarded as respects the admission of persons to membership or to the privileges of membership or in any other material respect. In paragraph (e) the word "habitual" is attached to used for an unlawful purpose, or for indecent displays, or as a resort of criminals or prostitutes or … persons being habitually admitted and supplied with intoxicating liquor. My noble friend's Amendment proposes that in each of those three cases the word "frequently" should be substituted for "habitually".

I think this is a sound administrative point, because it must be much more difficult to get evidence that the premises are used in such a way as habitually to disregard the law, because one would assume that it means that the law is flouted virtually every night, and it is extremely difficult for the police or for other authorities to get evidence of that kind of thing. But it would be much easier if the word "frequently" were used and then, for example, it would be possible for a police officer to get evidence, perhaps, three times in a week, which I think would be regarded as a frequent breach of the conditions of the licence and would more nearly meet what we have in mind.

I say that because, in the cases which are brought to court now, one usually finds that the police officers who collected the evidence took observation, perhaps, on three or sometimes four occasions—not necessarily consecutive occasions, but three or four occasions over a fairly short period, which of course would be regarded as a frequent breach of the law. There, again, it is one of those points which may be described as a lawyer's point, but I think it has the practical value that it would make a successful prosecution easier than if we adhered to the word "habitually". I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 27, leave out ("habitually") and insert ("frequently").—(Lord Stonham.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a most interesting exercise in plumbing the well of English undefiled, because if you look at the definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary you will see that "habitually" is defined as: in the way of habit or settled practice, constantly, usually, customarily", and "frequently" is defined as: at frequent or short intervals, often, repeatedly". Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will at once see that a very serious and considerable—in the strict sense—argument could be put up that the Amendments are restrictive, rather than enlarging. A thing done regularly at fairly lengthy intervals—for example, a month—may be regarded as habitual before it can be regarded as frequent. That is the difficulty.

Now let me come to another point, which noble Lords will appreciate from their own vast experience, especially the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition. Habitual is the word used in Section 144, and there, noble Lords will remember, paragraph (b) says that the club can be struck off on the grounds that … the club is not conducted in good faith as a club, or is kept or habitually used for any unlawful purpose". Of course, in the clause of the Bill the words that we have to look at are: habitually used for any unlawful purpose which are the same words as the words used in Clause 23 subsection 2 (e): "or for indecent displays, or as a resort of criminals or prostitutes". The practical position is that these words were critically examined in another place and they were strongly attacked in some quarters as being too restrictive, because, as you see, we have gone a good deal beyond merely "any unlawful purpose" in order to try to meet the points of our discussion. The practical point, which I put to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is this: that if it were clear that "frequently" were a better and more attacking word than "habitually", then there would be a great deal to be said for it. When, on the definition, it is, to say the least of it, doubtful whether it really helps you—I say it with all deference to those who have thought out this point, and I can make a shrewd guess who they are—then I hope that noble Lords will not throw the gain we have got by putting these words into the melting pot again. I put the position completely frankly. I have given the noble Lord the definitions both ways, and I do not think, really, that what we gain here is worth a candle for lighting up once again all these points which were argued in another place. If there were any real gain, I should take a very different view.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I do not want to prolong the discussion on this matter. I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount far the explanation he has given, and I am bound to say that, looking at subsection 2 (e), one sees there is a great need there to cover many of the offences which one would fear might occur. But what I am very interested in—and I am bound to ask the question—is why, in subsection 2 (e), you find it necessary to use the words habitually used for an unlawful purpose, or for indecent displays, or as a resort of criminals or prostitutes", but for drunkenness you use the word "frequent". I should have thought, after that very learned exposition from the Oxford English Dictionary and other sources, which we had from the noble and learned Viscount, that he might explain what is the exact difference between "habitual" and "frequent" in subsection (2) (e).

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sorry, I did not pick up the reference.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

It is the third line of Clause 23, subsection (2) (e), which says, "habitually used", and then "frequent drunkenness". Which is which? You think that you can pick up all the other breakers of the law and semi-criminals by the use of that term, but when you come to drunkenness you refer, in that particular subsection, to "frequent".

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The answer to that, as the noble Viscount knows, is that the words "habitual drunkard" are used in another sense in law, and I think they have used the ward "frequent" so that there would not be any confusion on that point. It just goes to show that between "frequent" and "habitual" there is a very, very narrow line. That, I think, is the historic reason, and I congratulate the noble Viscount for putting this poser to me. Really, he is wasted in politics and the co-operative society. He ought to have been at the Bar. That is meant to be a compliment.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

The late Sir Norman Raeburn once said that to my Chairman, but he came down against me in the end.

LORD STONHAM

The noble and learned Viscount said that this was a nice exercise inquiring into the well of English. My particular trouble is that I am delving with my bucket into the well of my noble friend, Lord Silkin, and I may not have dredged up exactly those pearls of wisdom which would have come from him, had he been putting his own Amendment. Also, as I moved this Amendment at fairly short notice, I did not have the advantage of a brief or of looking up the Oxford English Dictionary; otherwise, I might have got another dictionary. But there is a very real problem here, and while giving full rating to what the Lord Chancellor has said, I am concerned with one thing and one thing only: will it make it easier for the police to get a conviction if the word "habitual" is used, or will it make it easier to get a conviction, if an offence is committed against this clause, if the word "frequent" is used? It seems to me that there are so many contradictory uses for these two words and, as my noble Leader has pointed out, we have both words used in the same subsection apparently meaning very much the same thing.

The noble and learned Viscount will be aware that if a man over 30 has two sentences of imprisonment, he is liable on a third conviction to sentence as an habitual criminal, though he may not have offended very frequently. His number of offences may be only three sentences of imprisonment spread over his whole life. I am also thinking of offences which are, happily, no more—for example, street betting. The offence there normally was not that somebody was habitually street bookmaking but that the constable saw the man frequently taking bets; and he was convicted because he was frequently taking bets. I assure the noble and learned Viscount that I have not read a single word of any of the deliberations in another place. I have come to this Bill with a fresh mind, and I certainly come to this particular Amendment with a completely fresh mind; and I do not know that I could come to it better. But it certainly seems to me that on a matter of conviction, "frequently" would be better than "habitually". I wonder whether, in view of what has been said, and in view of the fact that the two words are in the same subsection, it would not be better in each case in this clause to use the word "frequently" than "habitually." Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount would look at it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 [Appeal to quarter sessions]:

7.33 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

In the absence of my noble friend Lord Silkin I should like to move this Amendment on his behalf, to make sure that provision is made in the Statute-to-be, for serving with notice of appeal. My noble friend thinks this Amendment makes it clear, and more just, and I hope very much that the noble and learned Viscount will be able to accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 8, after ("be") insert ("served with notice of the appeal and shall be entitled to be").—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am very willing to consider this point, but I ask the noble Viscount not to press me for a commitment because we have considerable difficulty about it. Clause 26 (3) provides that where a club appeals against the decision of the magistrates' court any objector shall be a party to the appeal; and the Law Society represented that it was wrong to make an objector a party to an appeal against his wishes, as it would make him liable to an order for costs even though he took no part in the proceedings. This Amendment is intended to allow the objector to elect whether to be a party to the appeal. Your Lordships see the position: someone objects; his objection is successful; the club appeals to quarter sessions; quarter sessions takes a view in favour of the club, and therefore if the objector is party to the appeal there is a risk of his being condemned in costs. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the Law Society would say that although he had objected, he could himself choose whether or not he was a party to the club's appeal. They would leave it to him.

I hope that I have made the position clear, and that is what leads to the difficulty with us. It is true that under Clause 26 (3) the effect would be that on appeal an order as to costs may be made—I stress the words "may be made"—against an objector who has objected at the first stage and taken no part in the appeal. Now in one case it is clearly right that quarter sessions should have this discretion as to costs. If an objector is successful before the magistrates and the club is ordered to pay his costs (and the reference there is paragraph 3 (4) of the Seventh Schedule) it would be wrong to allow him to keep these costs if the club succeeded in its appeal. I think that is quite clear. He objects; the club loses and is ordered to pay his costs; the club then appeals to quarter sessions and wins. It is very hard that someone who has objected below and succeeded there, but is then found to be wrong on appeal, should retain the costs that have been allowed him through a mistaken decision of the first court. Yet this Amendment would allow the objector to keep his costs if he elected not to be party to the appeal. He could go home with the costs in his pocket.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Is that not reasonable in such a case, where an objection is largely in the public interest, and the appeal to the quarter sessions is purely on a question of law?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

An appeal to quarter sessions would be on a question of fact. It is not an appeal to a Divisional Court; it is an appeal to quarter sessions, and it would be a re-hearing of the same issue. Since quarter sessions is a higher court its decision stands. The higher court having said that the club ought to win, it seems to me that the objector should not be allowed to go home with the costs which, in the view of quarter sessions, he does not deserve. It may be argued that in other cases the clause will bear hardly on objectors. That is, you might have (I am trying to put the other side) a neighbour who took a poor view and said, "I do not want this club here, I do not think it would have a good effect on the family," and so on. He might be a successful objector and he might not want to go to quarter sessions. That is the sort of person (I have over simplified it) that they have in mind. We think that the real answer to this difficult problem is to leave the costs in the discretion of quarter sessions. I have taken the case where quarter sessions has decided in one way. But, broadly, my forty years' experience teaches me that the more complete the discretion that is given to a court as to costs, the more likely justice is to be done in art infinite variety of different cases.

I have taken the two extremes. For example, I should be very surprised if any court of quarter sessions made an order for costs against the individual objector whom I have described. I think really the discretion can produce a fairer result than a rigid provision which would 'be written into the However, again. I will look into it, and perhaps the noble Viscount could say to his noble friend, Lord Silkin, that if when he has read the debate he has any further point that he would like to put before me, if he would care to come and see me I should be happy to discuss it with him. But at the moment I would ask the noble Viscount not to press for a decision, because I think he will see that I have said enough to show it is a very difficult point, and all we want to do is approximate as closely as we can to justice.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I am much obliged. After what the noble and learned Viscount has said, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment and I will have a discussion with my noble friend.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended at seventeen minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at half past eight]:

Clause 27 [Inspection of premises before first registration]:

EARL BATHURST moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "any constable authorised in writing by the chief officer of police", and to insert: an officer of the local authority authorised in writing by that authority". The noble Earl said: Clause 27 of the Bill provides that, where a club applies for the issue of a registration certificate in respect of any premises, any constable authorised in writing by the chief officer of police may, on giving not less than 48 hours' notice, enter and inspect the premises at any reasonable time on such day, not being more than fourteen days after the making of the application, as may be specified in the notice. The clause gives a similar right of inspection where a club applies for the renewal of a registration certificate in respect of different, additional or enlarged premises. The clause gives the like rights of inspection to an officer of the local authority.

Clause 23 allows objection to be made by the chief officer of police—and also by the local authority, and by any person affected by reason of his occupation of or interest in other premises—to an application for the issue or renewal of a registration certificate on the grounds set oust in Clause 23 (2), including the ground that the premises are not suitable and convenient for the purpose in view of their character and condition and of the size and nature of the club. Provision is made for inspection of club premises by the police in order that they may be able to decide whether or not to make objection on this ground.

The provisions of Clause 27 authorising police inspection of club premises have been much criticised by clubs and club organisations, and as a result of the Report stage fin another place my right honourable friend undertook to move Amendments in your Lordships' House on the lines of those put down by the honourable Member for Newport, which would allow inspection by the police only if the chief officer of police was satisfied that there existed special reasons making inspection necessary. These Amendments have been put down in pursuance of that undertaking. The effect of the Amendments is to allow inspection by the police on first application for a registration certificate or on an application for renewal of a registration certificate in respect of different, additional, or enlarged premises only if the chief officer of police is of the opinion that special reasons exist making it necessary that the premises should be inspected for the proper discharge of his functions in relation to the registration of clubs.

As I have said, Clause 23 allows objection to be made by the chief officer of police Ito en application for the issue or renewal of a registration certificate on the ground that the premises are not suitable and convenient for the purpose in view of their character. The police may not need in all cases to inspect club premises for the purpose of deciding whether or not to make an objection on this ground, butt in some cases they may need to do so, for example, whether the premises are a basement room which is intended to serve as a bar for a club with a large membership. In such a case the police should be able to inspect the premises to decide whether reasonable order could be maintained in the premises and whether objection should, or should not, be made to the application for a registration certificate. The Amendments would allow inspection in such a case, but not in any other cases where the chief officer of police was not of the opinion that special reasons existed making inspection necessary for the proper discharge of his functions in relation to the registration of clubs.

Paragraph 2 (4) of the Eighth Schedule has the effect that the police will not in any event be able to inspect the premises of a club on first application for a registration certificate under the new pro- cedure if the club has for the three years preceding the coming into force of the new procedure been registered under the 1953 Act in respect of the premises. The right of inspection by the police which Clause 27 confers, as it may be amended by these Amendments which I am moving, will therefore be exercisable only in respect of a club which has not been in existence for three years or which, baying been in existence for that time, applies for renewal of a registration certificate in respect of different, additional or enlarged premises. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 18, leave out from ("premises") to ("may") in line 19, and insert ("an officer of the local authority authorised in writing by that authority").—(Earl Bathurst.)

LORD STONHAM

I understand that the noble Earl has been speaking to Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51. Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 merely amount to the transposition of the phrases concerning an officer of the local authority and a police officer, and there is no objection to that. The only Amendment of substance—and it is an Amendment of considerable substance—is Amendment No. 51, which says that a chief officer of police shall not … authorise a constable unless … special reasons exist making it necessary for him to do so. I think this is a very regrettable weakening of the Bill; a weakening of the powers of police officers. I should like to know how a chief officer of police is to know that special reasons exist unless he can make an inspection of the premises.

The noble Earl said they might be basement premises, and therefore obviously undesirable from that point of view. Of course, it may be that the particulars which have to be supplied in the registration application may indicate that they are basement premises; I do not know. But it would seem to me entirely necessary, if the intentions of the Bill are to be carried out, for the chief officer of police, if he thinks it necessary, to authorise one of his officers to go and make an inspection. I cannot see that the noble Earl has made out any case at all for this Amendment.

It is perfectly true, as he said, that this Amendment has been set down to honour a commitment made by his right honourable friend in respect of an Amendment moved by the honourable Member for Newport in another place; but although, naturally, I am impressed by that fact, I am not sufficiently impressed to think there is any sense, rhyme or reason in it. To me, the important thing about the regulations we are considering regarding the registration of a club is that they should be policed. It is absolutely no earthly use putting regulations in a Bill, and clauses and subsections in a Bill, which look all very well on paper, if, in later sections, you tie the hands of the police so as to make it virtually impossible, except in exceptional circumstances, for them to carry them out. If you do that, we are really wasting our time.

Now it has been my misfortune to see some of the places in which clubs are run and in which clubs exist. They perhaps have been in fairly small-front-age buildings; tall buildings, with two or three floors. It is quite impossible, just looking at them from the outside, for a chief officer of police to say with any degree of certainty at all, as he must, that he cannot recommend that a certificate of registration should be granted in a particular case because the premises are unsuitable. And yet the particular Amendment which we are now asked to insert in the Bill makes it necessary for him to say that there are special reasons. They must be reasons within his knowledge why he should give one of his officers the authority to go and inspect the premises.

I really do not know—and, with respect, the noble Earl did not tell us—how a chief officer of police is expected to know that there are special reasons. I should have thought that in the case of an application for registration, if there are any police factors in it they should be known; that is, apart from things like character. I believe we are talking only about premises in Clause 27, and not about the character or antecedents of the applicant, or all those other reasons why the police should tell the magistrates that, in their view, registration should not be granted. We are talking about premises. I agree that there is no restriction on an officer of the local authority visiting the premises That is still in the clause. It has been shifted up a few lines, but it is still there. An officer of the local authority can go in.

Why is it that there is this fundamental objection to the police? I put it to noble Lords that it often falls to our lot to run a function, perhaps for charity, such as a dance or a ball, and an application is made by the organisers for a special licence to sell alcohol, which is usually granted if made in the proper form. A little certificate is given which the publican, or whoever is running the bar, pins up. An officer of the police always comes in during the evening—usually there are two—just to look at the licence and to see that the conditions are being observed. These officers are always in uniform, and they come into a happy party of people enjoying themselves. I have never known that to be resented; it is regarded as a matter of course, as the police doing their duty. I should like to know, first of all, how a chief officer of police is expected to know that there are special reasons, unless one of his people goes and has a look. Secondly, why is it that the Government are apparently so afraid, or have been so intimidated, into agreeing to these Amendments which weaken the power of the police, and are based on the belief, it seems, that honest people resent (which I do not believe is the case) inspection by the police?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I should like to point out to the noble Lord that this is only a question of whether or not the premises should be inspected; it is not a question of whether the chief officer of police should oppose. If he will look at the words of our Amendment he will see that it says: … unless in his opinion"— and I stress "in his opinion"— special reasons exist…". That is to say, it is a subjective matter, for the chief of police to decide whether there are "special reasons". I am not going to compete with the noble Lord about knowledge of the way the police work; but, of course, the chief of police will receive reports from his force, and they will receive information from many people, as to what conditions prevail in the club concerned, and it will be for the chief of police to decide whether the premises require inspection. My noble friend Earl Bathurst gave the example of a basement room which is intended to serve as a bar for a club with a large membership, because that is exactly the sort of case as to which a chief constable would ask himself, "Can they in that room maintain reasonable order?" On the second point the noble Lord put, we have to face that he takes a very strong view that any decent club would not resent inspection. As a matter of fact that feeling is not, as he knows, universally shared. There are plenty of members of the most decent clubs who resent this. The noble Lord thinks that they are wrong, but that is a fact.

One is also bound to take into account the universality of feeling in another place. When the suggestion is put forward—I put this merely as background; I am not going to discuss whether it is right or wrong—by so senior a member of the Opposition, who has held such distinguished ministerial office, it is bound to be something that one must take into account. And if he suggests that there should be this minor limitation—in my view, it is minor, because it is entirely for the chief of police to decide—I think that the Government would have been regarded as ungracious had they not gone some way to meet this universally held opinion. From the practical point of view, I do not think that it will have the bad result which the noble Lord fears, because I am sure that every chief officer of police who has the slightest idea that there may be danger or difficulty in any premises will consider that a special reason. Therefore, I hone that the Committee will accept the Amendment, which is to meet a general consensus of opinion.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL BATHURST

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 25, leave out from ("and") to ("shall") in line 26, and insert ("a constable authorised in writing by the chief officer of police").—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL BATHURST

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 27, at end insert ("but a chief officer of police shall not so authorise a constable unless in his opinion special reasons exist making it necessary that the premises should he inspected for the proper discharge of his functions in relation to the registration of clubs.")—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 28 [Rights of fire authorities in connection with registration of clubs.]

8.46 p.m.

EARL BATHURST moved, in Clause 28, to insert as a new first subsection: (1) As regards any matter affecting fire risks the local authority if they are the fire authority, shall have the like rights in relation to the inspecion of premises under section twenty-seven of this Act on any application for the renewal of a registration certificate for the premises as they have in the case of an application for the issue of a certificate.

The noble Earl said: May I take Amendment No. 55 and its two consequential Amendments, Nos. 56 and 57, together? Clause 28 gives to fire authorities the same rights of inspection of club premises as are given to local authorities under Clause 27. Clause 27 gives a right of inspection on a first application for a registration certificate or on an application for renewal of registration certificate in respect of different, additional or enlarged premises. When Clause 28 was moved at Report stage in the House of Commons the honourable Member for Islington, East, suggested that the fire authority and the local authority should be given the same power to inspect club premises on every renewal. My right honourable and learned friend the Solicitor General conceded that it could be argued that fire is perhaps a special case, and said that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would very carefully consider what had been said in the course of the proceedings. This point has been considered and it has been decided to give fire authorities a right of inspection on every renewal of a club's registration certificate.

The first Amendment provides that, as regards any matter affecting fire risks, the local authority, if they are the fire authority—for example, a county borough council—shall have the like rights in relation to the inspection of premises under Clause 27 on any application for the renewal of a registration certificate as they have in the case of an application for the issue of a certificate. Under subsection (2) of Clause 28, a fire authority which is not a local authority as defined in Clause 31 (3)—that is, a county council or a combined authority—will have, as regards any matter affecting fire risks, the same rights of inspection as it would have if it were the local authority and thus will have the additional rights under the new subsection (1) added by the first Amendment.

The second and third Amendments modify the existing subsection (1) of Clause 28 to provide that a fire authority which is a county council or a combined authority shall be given notice by the clerk to the justices of the making of an application for the issue and every renewal of a registration certificate. A fire authority which is also a local authority will receive copies of the club's application for the issue or renewal of a registration certificate by virtue of paragraph 2 (5) of the Seventh Schedule.

As has been pointed out above, it was represented in the Commons that local authorities, as well as fire authorities, should be given the right to inspect club premises on every renewal. The Government do not accept that it is necessary to give local authorities a right of inspection on every renewal. Plainly the right to inspect club premises should be kept to the minimum necessary. It is proposed to give to fire authorities only the right to inspect on every renewal, because there may be such changes in the premises affecting fire risks (for example, in the means of escape from the premises, including the disposition of furniture, and so forth, which may affect means of escape from the premises) that the fire authority should have the opportunity to inspect the premises more frequently than other authorities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 42, at beginning insert the said subsection.—(Earl Bathurst.)

LORD STONHAM

My noble friends and I warmly support this Amendment which we think is extremely necessary and welcome. I believe it is true to say that the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary was moved to agree to Amendments of this kind because of the disaster at Bolton. For that reason, I should be grateful if the noble Earl could answer one or two questions on this point. In moving the Amendment be has referred only to clubs. I should like to know whether this provision will apply only to registered clubs, or whether it will also apply to licensed restaurants.

The reason I ask this is that, as he is well aware, in some licensed clubs, and again in licensed restaurants, performances are given of the nature of theatrical performances, and sometimes to audiences of several hundred; in other words, on those occasions the premises are in fact a theatre. I have in my hand the rules and regulations with regard to theatres under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain, and they run to ten closely printed foolscap pages. Every conceivable danger which can arise, so far as I can see, is thought of and provided for in these rules and regulations, and I believe they are all highly necessary and essential for the protection of the public. They include exits, entrances, curtains, fire appliances and precautions, the number of attendants, and so on. So far as I am aware, these restaurants and clubs which are at present giving performances—where, as I say, there are hundreds of people quite close to the artistes, and sometimes close enough to touch them—have virtually no provisions of this kind at all in the way of regulations, either local authority or otherwise. The noble Earl will be aware that the London County Council, for example, has most stringent by-laws in respect of theatres.

Therefore my question is two-fold: first, will these precautions, which are most welcome, apply only to licensed registered clubs, or will they also apply, as I think they must—and if they do not, then we shall have to put in an Amendment at a later stage—to the licensed restaurants where performances are given? It will indeed be tragic if, merely because it is limited to clubs, this right of inspection by the fire authorities should miss out some of these other places which, in my belief, are extremely dangerous and where they are fortunate not to have had a tragic happening before this.

My second question is: do the Government have it in mind that, where the fire authorities have the right of inspection in this way, they will be able to recommend regulations and requirements similar to those required in theatres when the conditions are comparable? These regulations apply to very small theatres seating under 100 people, so it is a fair comparison. If the noble Earl could give the information on these two points, or say that it is provided for elsewhere in the Bill, I should be extremely grateful. Otherwise, if he will write to me, we can consider it and see whether the point has to be raised again so that the cover, as it were, the right of inspection by fire authorities, can be enlarged to cover other registered establishments, and not only clubs.

EARL BATHURST

The noble Lord is quite right: this particular Amendment does not apply to ordinary licensed premises, whether restaurants of the type the noble Lord was describing, or any other type of restaurant. Premises of that sort are looked after in Part I of the Bill, and, as the noble Lord knows, there are very stringent regulations with regard to the music and dancing licences issued by the London County Council, or by the music and dancing licensing authorities elsewhere in the country. If there is any dissatisfaction with regard to the fire precautions in such a licensed restaurant, then a music and dancing certificate or licence will not be given. If, again, the magistrates or the licensing justices are not satisfied with regard to the fire precautions taken in such an establishment they, too, will refuse to allow a licence to sell alcohol.

The noble Lord appreciates that this Bill is concerned only with licensed restaurants, and I am quite certain that Part I of the Bill—and we moved an Amendment with regard to the issue of new licences and inspection by fire authorities—covers all the points for licensed restaurants and the premises the noble Lord has in mind where alcohol is served. But I will look at the point he has brought up with regard to theatre regulations and, should it appear that I am wrong, I will certainly let the noble Lord know, without, of course, committing my right honourable friend in any way. I think I can safely assure the noble Lord that the Part I provisions cover those places which serve alcohol that he has in mind.

LORD STONHAM

Does that mean that, so far as the restaurants are concerned, the fire authorities already, under Part I of the Bill, will have the right of inspection and of recommendation?

EARL BATHURST

And objection.

LORD STONHAM

That answers one of my questions extremely satisfactorily, and I am most grateful. But on the other part, whatever the regulations may be, I can assure the noble Earl that there is absolutely no comparison whatever between the regulations in respect of a theatre—it may well be that the point has not yet been considered in respect of a theatre—and those which apply to these establishments which give a precisely comparable performance. For example, the Windmill Theatre is a theatre, and it is completely subject to the Lord Chamberlain's regulations. Raymond's, or any of the other places such as the Panama, which give a comparable performance and have hundreds of people there, have virtually no safety precautions at all. Therefore I am most grateful for the noble Earl's offer. If he will look into that point and communicate with me, it may be possible for us to extend this safety provision.

LORD AIREDALE

I would add just a word in support of this Amendment, and I should like to mention the Member in another place, the Member for Bolton, West, who was keenly interested in it, for it was in Bolton that the disaster occurred which I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned just now. It was a tragic disaster of a serious fire in club premises in which human life was lost. If this Amendment succeeds in ensuring that on club premises fire-fighting equipment is not only initially provided but is maintained at all times, which of course is as vitally important as providing it initially, then this Amendment may well prevent a recurrence of such a tragedy and will be, of course, of the greatest value.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I am very much in favour of this clause, like my noble friend: but will the noble Earl give me a reference to Part I of the Act, in which this matter is taken care of as regards other places like restaurants and so on? I cannot find a similar provision, myself. Of course, I know the difficulty that there is in tracing it. Reference is made to Acts of Parliament, and therefore, this is a sort of legislation by reference to legislation, and that is always a difficulty. It is rather a pity for that to happen. But if the noble Earl can tell us where the authority is, I shall be satisfied.

EARL BATHURST

Unfortunately, on our new Marshalled List we have not got a reference, but it was in Amendment No. 3 which we moved. That is one of the Amendments. I think we can give an assurance to the noble Viscount that this provision will be looked into, and, if it is not as I have said, I will communicate with the noble Lord.

LORD STONHAM

I am most grateful for that. Amendment No. 3 was "Page 5, line 38, at end insert …" and it is, as the noble Earl said: that the authority or an officer designated in that behalf by the authority desired in connection with the application to have the premises inspected for purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above". That is the authority he mentioned.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 44, after ("issue") insert ("or renewal").(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 45, leave out from ("premises") to end of line 3 on page 41.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 28 to insert the following new clause:

Extended hours in premises of registered clubs

.—(1) Section (Extended hours in restaurants etc. providing entertainment) of this Act shall apply in relation to club premises in respect of which a club is registered as it applies in relation to licensed premises, subject to the following modifications:—

1. (a) for any reference to licensing justices there shall be substituted a reference to the magistrates' court; and
2. (b) an application for an order under subsection (4) shall be made by the club, and notice of the making of the order shall be given under subsection (10) by the secretary of the club; and
3. (c) an order under subsection (4) shall lapse on the club's registration certificate ceasing to be in force or on the date from which the certificate is next renewed after the date of the order or, where that certificate has been renewed for a period exceeding a year, on such earlier date (if any) as may be specified in the order; and
622
4. (d) subsections (9), (11), (12) and (13) shall not apply, except in so far as subsection (11) relates to subsection (4) of section ten of this Act.

(2) Section one hundred and four of the Licensing Act, 1953, shall have effect, in relation to club premises in respect of which a club is registered, with the substitution for the references to the licensing justices for the district in which the premises are situated of references to the magistrates' court; but where in the case of any such premises the magistrates' court has been satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of that section (or at the time that this section comes into force licensing justices have been and remain so satisfied) the requirement of that section that the court shall be so satisfied shall be treated as fulfilled until the magistrates' court declares that it is no longer so satisfied.

(3) In the foregoing subsections "the magistrates' court" means, in relation to any club premises, a magistrates' court having jurisdiction in relation to the issue and renewal of the club's registration certificate for the premises; and in sections one hundred and thirteen to one hundred and eighteen of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which relate to special hours certificates), the expression "the magistrate" shall have the same meaning.

(4) An application made to a magistrates' court by virtue of subsection (3) above shall be made by way of complaint against the club where the application is for the revocation of a special hours certificate, or of an order under subsection (4) of section (Extended hours in restaurants etc. providing entertainment) of this Act, or for a declaration that as respects any premises the court is no longer satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section one hundred and four of the Licensing Act, 1953; and, subject to paragraph 6 of the Seventh Schedule to this Act. subparagraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 5 of that Schedule shall apply in relation to any such complaint as they apply in relation to a complaint for the cancellation or variation of a registration certificate.

(5) In relation to any application made to a magistrates' court by virtue of subsection (3) other than an application to which subsection (4) applies, subsection (1) of section twenty-eight of this Act and paragraphs 2 and 3, subparagraph (1) of paragraph 4 and sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5 of the Seventh Schedule to this Act shall (subject to paragraph 6 of that Schedule) apply with any necessary modifications as they apply in relation to applications for the issue of a registration certificate:

Provided that paragraph 2 of the Seventh Schedule shall not require public notice to be given of an application for an order under subsection (4) of section (Extended hours in restaurants etc. providing entertainment) of this Act to be made by way of renewal of a previous order (without variation).

(6) Accordingly at the end of subsection (4) of section one hundred and nineteen of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which enables the Secretary of State to make rules for the procedure on an application under sections one hundred and thirteen to one hundred and eighteen of that Act), there shall be added the words "other than an application to a magistrates' court."

The noble and learned Viscount said: I have already put before your Lordships the reasons for this new clause, and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, who was good enough to say that the Opposition agreed with them. I do not think I need repeat myself, and I can say simply that I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 28 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD STONHAM

I believe that this clause means that clubs can get a special extension up to 2 o'clock in the morning in the provinces and to 3 a.m. in London, even when a club, under certain provisions of this Bill, lets the premises for the evening to another organisation. I am raising this question because this doubt exists in respect of a very ancient and honourable club which has this practice. The members have gained the impression that they may stay open under the extended hours business only until half past one in the morning. It is a question which really comes from the Back Benches opposite, and they have asked me, as an authority—quite wrongly—whether it is the case that under these extended hours, under the provision of this clause which the Lord Chancellor has moved, in the provinces a club may have its hours extended to 2 a.m. and in London to 3 a.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was here when we discussed the series of Amendments after Clause 8—to insert the new clause Extended hours in restaurants, etc., providing entertainment—that was the first Amendment we dealt with to-day. That was the Amendment of which I gave notice on the Second Reading of the Bill; I gave notice of my intention to invite your Lordships to consider a proposal under which suitable premises catering for people with more modest purses would be allowed some more limited extension of hours; and we are dealing with a more limited extension of hours in that series. The present clause makes a similar provision on the same line for clubs, and if the noble Lord would be good enough, as it is a special case, to write to me about it I shall be very pleased to look into it for him.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

9.7 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved, after Clause 28 to insert the following new clause:

Constable's powers of entry

".—(1) A constable may, for the purpose of preventing or detecting the commission of an offence against this Act, enter the premises of a proprietary club which is registered under this Part of this Act.

(2) If the proprietor of such a club or any person in his employ or acting on his behalf fails to admit a constable who demands entry to premises in pursuance of this section, he shall be liable on a first conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and on a subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds."

The noble Lord said: I am hoping that this is the last contentious Amendment that we have to deal with, but certainly it is one which my noble friends and I feel quite strongly about, because we feel that the Government, by limiting the constable's power of entry, have gravely weakened the Bill. You will notice that this Amendment refers only to the premises of proprietary clubs, and therefore avoids the objection (to which the Lord Chancellor has already referred this evening) which some members of very respectable clubs feel to a constable having power of entry. I think that unless this Amendment is accepted we shall have reason within twelve months very much to regret the fact that a constable's power of entry is no stronger than it is at present.

I particularly welcome the reference which was made to this matter in the letter from the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches who, in fact, while welcoming the Bill's provisions with regard to clubs, strongly supported what I said on Second Reading in this matter and asked that the police should have fuller rights of entry. It is reasonable to assume that all the leaders and executive officers of the Temperance Council of Churches are members of well-conducted clubs, and it is therefore greatly to their credit, and a measure of the importance of their advice, that they should nevertheless press that the police be given fuller rights of entry. I was particularly struck by something which the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, said last evening. In replying to another Amendment he said that it would bring me great comfort because when there was a special hours certificate the police would have the same rights of entry as they would into ordinary licensed premises. I can see that that is so.

But here we have this anomaly, and I would submit it to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. An honest restaurateur or club proprietor applies for an extended hours certificate and thereby makes himself liable to immediate and automatic entry by the police for the purpose of inspection. That is because he has honestly said, "I am going to keep open till 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock. I want a special certificate to that effect." Therefore he is open to inspection. But the dishonest club proprietor who intends to go on serving drinks or carrying on until 3 o'clock in the morning, whatever he intends to do there, does not lay himself open to the right of automatic inspection by the police. He can say to the police, "You cannot come in here", and the only way the police can obtain evidence against the dishonest club proprietor who flouts the law is to wangle themselves in as members, in disguise as it were, pay a great deal of money for the so-called entertainment that they receive, illegal entertainment, and then bring a prosecution.

I do not know whether the Government have considered that point, but it seems to me quite unanswerable; you quite rightly make the honest people who apply properly for extended hours licence open to inspection, but you give immunity, under the Bill as it now stands, to the dishonest people who get up to all sorts of skulduggery. This Amendment is a very modest one, because it will confine the constable's power of entry to proprietary clubs, and the great majority of clubs would therefore be immune unless a justice issued a search warrant after receipt of information on oath, which is precisely the condition which rules at present. I cannot see why there should be any valid objection whatever to granting a police constable the right of entry to a proprietary club. It cannot or should not be offensive to the members.

I would point to this. The proprietors or managers of public houses have to be persons of very good character; otherwise they would not get licences. Indeed their applications for licences going back over a period of years are investigated most stringently before they are granted a licence. But the manager of a public house is not only liable to automatic inspection of his premises by the police, but his own private rooms where he lives are open to automatic inspection and he cannot make any objection. It is, to my mind, quite impossible for the proprietors of licensed clubs to argue that in so far as their premises are concerned they should be given an immunity which is denied to the managers or proprietors of licensed premises.

I believe that unless the Government accept this Amendment they will, despite this Bill, give the green light to some of the worst and most undesirable establishments in the country. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is aware that I am president of the Association for Moral and Social Hygiene, and in January of this year my Association addressed a very strong latter on this subject to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary. We strongly welcome the provisions of this Bill in relation to clubs, but we are of opinion that there must be an extension of police powers to cover the right of entry. Of course, I shall listen with great care to the Government's reply on this point; but I hope that the reply will cover the point which I made about this apparent anomaly.

I would emphasise that not only am I thinking of the comparatively small number of West End places, which are in fact nothing more than expensive houses of procurement; I am thinking of the many smaller places which are, often enough, not only horrible little drinking dens but purveyors of every form of nastiness imaginable. I know that in such places the proprietor is supposed to give the so-called members the right to enjoy the profits made from drink. But he can do that quite properly and easily, because under this Bill he will make enormous profits from other activities. Some of them run special late, unadvertised shows for which people pay up to £5 as an entrance fee.

I am informed that these shows are so disgraceful that even the ordinary strip-tease girls will not perform in them. I know many of these places. But the police know them far better than I do. The point is, however, that the police are at present virtually powerless to deal with them. I submit that unless this Amendment is accepted, because they are proprietary places the police will still be powerless to deal with them. I would ask: are we, therefore, to continue to give immunity to some of the most miserable wretches on earth? I hope the Government will be true and firm to their first intentions in this matter, and have the courage to do what is necessary, to take the advice of the Churches and to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 28 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stonham.)

9.17 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the great attention he has paid to this subject matter, he is under a complete misapprehension as to the effect of this Bill on proprietary clubs. The Bill does not make it impossible for a proprietary club to become a registered club, but it would not be possible for a proprietary club in which the liquor was under the control of 'a proprietor to register. That is clear from Clause 22 (6) (c).

As the noble Lord made clear—indeed, it was the burden of his complaint—it is from the supply of liquor that the proprietor of an undesirable proprietary club obtains his profit, and it may be expected that no such club will be able to register when the provisions of the Bill come pinto effect. So there is no case for singling out proprietary clubs in the way suggested by the new clause, because they have either got to put themselves right on the question of the control of the liquor by their members or they will not get registration. Otherwise—if they do not get registration—they Will have to apply for a justices' licence under Clause 30 instead of seeking registration; the justices have unfettered discretion whether or not to grant a licence, and such clubs would, as licensed premises, be open to police inspection at all times.

One comes to the point that if we had dealt with the question of proprietary clubs by that means—that they must put themselves right and under the control of their members or not be registered—is there still a case for the police inspecting without warrant? I would remind your Lordships that Clause 29 of the Bill provides for entry by the police into club premises on the authority of a warrant If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for believing"— not that it exists, but that there is reasonable ground for believing it to exist—first, that there is ground for cancelling (in whole or in part) a registration certificate held by a club, and that evidence of it is to be obtained at the club premises or any of them;… The second ground is, that intoxicating liquor is sold or supplied by or on behalf of a club in club premises for which the club does not hold a registration certificate or a justices' licence, or is kept in any club premises for sale or supply in contravention of Part III of the Bill.

Now we believe that, in the circumstances and conditions, and with the effect which we think this Bill will have, this is surely a sufficient power; and the Government could not accept the principle of entry by the police without warrant into club premises at any time, which is inherent in the proposal made by the new clause. 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. There is a real difference between the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and myself and my friends on this point, and I can only say that on that he must select whether he divides the House or not.

LORD STONHAM

Could I ask the Lord Chancellor to deal with the point I made: that a proprietary club which applies for an extended hours certificate is subject to automatic entry by the police, whereas if it does not apply for an extended hours certificate it can carry on into illegal hours but can bar the police from entry? That seems to me an injustice and an anomaly, and I should like him to deal with that point before we leave this matter.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The position is that it is the existing law that all those who ask for extended hours must subject themselves to this police investigation. If the club does it illegally, then they will be liable to the procedure of warrant which I have described.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I must say that I do not feel very happy about this. I understand the line of argument that the noble and learned Viscount has taken, but I do not think he is meeting the views of the Temperance Council of Christian Churches, which is what we have been anxious to secure. I think my noble friend Lord Stonham has really put the point in question to the noble and learned Viscount, and it is the important issue. However, he says to-night that it is impossible to concede what we want. It is also impossible for me to look for any support of any size in the Division Lobby. The Business has been of such extraordinary arrangement in the current Session that it is very difficult to get a House on Bills like this so late at night.

However, I should like to say to my noble friend that, while we cannot press this Amendment to-night, we will have to take further counsel with the Temperance Council of Christian Churches, and we may have to make further representations to the noble and learned Viscount, because on that two-pronged question which my noble friend put to the noble and learned Viscount I feel we have not had an adequate answer. If the position that I have put appeals to my noble friend, I think he may agree to withdraw the Amendment now, knowing that it is probable we shall raise it again on Report.

LORD STONHAM

I am going to accept my noble friend's advice and withdraw the Amendment, but since I feel that certainly on one point the Lord Chancellor was unable to give me an answer—at least not a satisfying answer—we shall have to return to this matter on the Report stage, when we hope that there will be a larger number of noble Lords present. With that I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to.

Clause 31 [Interpretation, and transitional and consequential provisions]:

EARL BATHURST

This is purely a short technical Amendment which does exactly what it says. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 43, line 24, at end insert— ("() Any power to make orders conferred by this Act on the Secretary of State includes power to vary or revoke an order made in the exercise of that power.").—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 [Short title, citation, repeal, extent and commencement]:

EARL BATHURST

This Amendment is consequential on No. 25. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 13, leave out ("the Occasional Licences and Young Persons Act, 1956").—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.

First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule [Supplementary Provision for Polls in Wales and Monmouth-shire]:

9.28 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON) moved, in paragraph 7, after sub-paragraph (2) to insert: () Where on any poll a greater number of persons claim to attend the counting as observers than is allowed under sub-paragraph (2) above, the county returning officer or mayor in choosing between them shall have regard to their opinions about Sunday opening (if known to him) with the aim of designating, as far as he can, those for and those against Sunday opening in equal numbers. The noble Lord said: This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking given by the Government in another place. Its effect is that where a number of persons applying to attend as observers of a local poll is greater than the number of counting clerks, the returning officer and the mayor (who I am sure will have sufficient local knowledge) will be able to see that there are among the observers equal numbers of those who support and those who oppose Sunday opening. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 6, at the end, insert the said sub-paragraph.—(Lord Brecon.)

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I should like to know a little more about this Amendment, because I am somewhat like my noble friend Lord Stonham: I have not been a deep student of the OFFICIAL REPORTS of the debates in another place on this matter. Apparently the Minister, Lord Brecon, seems to think that a pledge was given. This is extraordinary wording to me, and seems as if somebody is going to try to find out the opinions of those who are to be observers at the poll, and come to a decision whether or not there are too many on one side or too many on the other. Is that what this really means? Who asked for this particular concession in the other place? I do not quite understand.

LORD BRECON

It was the Member for the constituency of Caernarvon, who I believe is a great supporter of not opening on Sundays, and this really meets his wishes that the observers shall be drawn, if possible, and if it is known, equally from those who support and those who do not support.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I suppose that, if it is to meet his wishes, it is all right. But it seems an extraordinary thing to have a sort of local inquiry as to what this one or that one agrees to, and what his opinions are. So far as I can remember, I have never seen such a thing before in legislation.

LORD BRECON

I said at the beginning that I thought the returning officer and the mayor had sufficient local knowledge of this matter to see that fair play was done.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

In a village station?

LORD BRECON

The returning officer is the clerk to the county council, in the one place, and the mayor of the county borough in the other.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Third Schedule [Adaptations of Licensing Act, 1953, Sections 113 to 119 (Special Hours Certificates) for Areas outside Metropolis]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is consequential on the new clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 12, leave out paragraph 3.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fourth Schedule [Licensing procedure and appeals]:

EARL BATHURST

This Amendment requires the clerk to the licensing justices to make available for inspection by the public during the fourteen days preceding each licensing sessions (general annual licensing meeting or transfer sessions) a list of applications which have been made for the grant of a new justices' licence or for the transfer or removal of an existing licence. The fee, if any, for inspection will be prescribed by the Secretary of State under Clause 16 (1). There is a somewhat similar provision in Scottish licensing law. These applications must in any case be advertised in the local Press, under the Fourth Schedule, paragraph 2 (1) (c) (ii), but it was represented in the House of Commons that it would further assist the public if a list were available for inspection at the office of the clerk, and that it would be little burden on the latter, since he would have to draw up a list in any case for his own purposes, and Her Majesty's Government undertook to introduce an Amendment in your Lordships' House accordingly. This Amendment is generally welcomed by all concerned. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 54, line 6, at end insert— ("(7) The clerk to the licensing justices shall for each licensing sessions keep a list of the persons giving notice under this paragraph of their intention to apply for the grant of a justices' licence; and the list shall show the name and address of the applicant, the nature of the application and the situation of the premises to be licensed, and for the fourteen days preceding the sessions shall at all reasonable times be open to inspection by any person on payment of the appropriate fee (if any).")—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fifth Schedule: