HL Deb 06 April 1965 vol 265 cc12-20

2.56 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Cromartie.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Repeal of Sections 82 and 85 of Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959];

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD INGLEWOOD

With a view to considering a possible Amendment later I should like to ask the noble Earl how far, during the preparation of this Bill, he tried to link up his action with similar action on the South side of the Border. The subject of this Bill is not wholly a Scottish interest. I am concerned particularly with the southernmost of the two areas, the one based on the brewery in Carlisle. The Border cuts this small area into two, and it would seem, much more efficient if we could deal with both sides of the Border as one problem.

I live in the part of Cumberland affected, and I cannot agree that what was said during the Second Reading about our being disinterested in any change; in fact, I think it was misleading, although I am not suggesting that the noble Lord intentionally misled the House. In my view, some few would like to see no change; some would like to see far-reaching changes; but the majority would like to see a change on the lines of the noble Earl's Bill.

If I may say so, without disrespect, I did not think that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was very helpful, as he did not tell us very much about the merits of the Bill. There was very little argument for or against the changes. He suggested, at the end of his speech, that in this case no bread was better than half a loaf, but he missed the bigger implications. There is, in fact, a big issue here, and I hope that the noble Earl who has introduced this Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who I am sorry is not in his place, would agree with one general proposition that I now make.

While we shall all agree that, for good historical or other reasons, there are many differences between the laws and administration of England and Scotland, it is none the less in the interests of the people who live on either side of the Border, and who cross it frequently (and I do not think that the interests of these people are always very clear to legislators who dive in London, Edinburgh or Glasgow), that we should avoid introducing new small pettifogging differences, just for the sake of being different. A little give-and-take on both sides could get over much of this difficulty. This sort of thing might have been thought appropriate a long time ago, but nowadays it happens much too often and it is just inefficient government.

This is too big an issue to pursue to-day, but I hope that some noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite will rise to say that he is in agreement with this general proposition, which is entirely innocent and entirely reasonable—though I see that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, appears to be getting excited. I fear, on the other hand, that the noble Earl who introduced the Bill will say that it is impossible to extend the Bill to include parts of Cumberland. If so, I shall be very disappointed, and others who live in the area will be disappointed; but, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I wish him luck with his "half-loaf".

LORD CRAIGTON

Of course my noble friend is quite right in pointing out the difficulties and procedural conflicts that arise in the Border area where the two systems of government meet. Such difficulties are to a greater or lesser extent world-wide. They exist, as they do in Scotland, on the borders of even the most friendly nations.

There are only two solutions. The first is that the Border areas accept the differences and strive to work ever more closely together in spite of them. Such cross-border co-operation is going to be very necessary indeed when the Government really to try to solve the Border depopulation problem. Furthermore, the noble Lord asks that we iron out local procedural difficulties. This Border problem can be reflected in legislation, as we sought to reflect it in this House only a few weeks ago in our deliberations on the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was very co-operative on that occasion and we hope to succeed in another place on this Border point. That is one solution, for the Government and the local people to work together. The only other solution is for the two nations to adopt wholly identical laws and practices in all fields throughout the length and breadth of both countries; in other words, what the noble Lord is asking for is one domestic Government instead of two.

LORD INGLEWOOD

If I may intervene, I was not asking for anything of the kind. What I was asking for was a bit of common sense.

LORD CRAIGTON

The logical conclusion of what the noble Lord was suggesting is one domestic Government instead of two. In so far as this, or something like this, is what is in my noble friend's mind, I, after eleven years as Scottish Minister, wholly disagree. I draw his attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs which reported in 1954. In paragraph 109, in answering the argument that (I quote) There might appear to be logical grounds for suggesting that the office of Secretary of State for Scotland is an anomaly and should be abolished", they say: This argument takes no account of the existence of a separate Scottish ethos, history, and tradition and of practical differences between the two countries". And in paragraph 110 they add: Considered in broad terms. most of the work handled by the Scottish Departments lies in fields where Scottish conditions are clearly distinguishable from those in England and Wales. In the event, the Royal Commission increased the separation between the two countries by recommending that responsibility for Scottish roads and two other minor functions should be transferred from the responsible English Ministry to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

In the case of abolition of State management—on Second Reading I was talking of abolition, not of the suggestion in this Bill—it is perfectly true there was a difference of local opinion North and South of the Border, which was reflected at Government level in a difference of opinion between successive Secretaries of State for Scotland and successive Home Secretaries. It was only in the last year or so that public opinion in Scotland became so strongly in favour of abolition that something had to be done. And not for the first time—and, I hope, not for the last time—since England would not join Scotland in this matter, we in Scotland, with England's approval, decided that Scotland should go it alone.

This may be thought to be a minor matter, but it is not. I am always deeply conscious of the world tendency, which is for small nations to seek to run their own affairs. It is not right to say this simply could not happen here. This State management issue is exactly the sort of pinprick that can lead to trouble and dissatisfaction out of all proportion to the importance of the issue involved. There has been growing harmony between our two countries since the crisis of confidence which led to the appointment of the Royal Commission in 1952 following six years of Labour rule. This has not happened by chance. In the last twelve years Scottish Ministers have deliberately, and on every issue, sought to give expression to the legitimate needs and aspirations of the Scottish people, and in this they have had the full and understanding support of successive Prime Ministers and Cabinets. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is not even here to-day.

If the Labour Government stay in office long enough they will regret the day that, as seems clear from their attitude to this Bill, they started once again, as they did when in office before, to pay little more than lip-service to Scotland as a separate nation. England with her greater population must always be the predominant partner. But for England, and for the United Kingdom, prosperity and harmony lie riot in domination but in understanding and in co-operation.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON)

Speaking as I do in the place of my noble friend Lord Hughes, and being a mere Englishman, I have listened with reverent attention to the two speeches we have just heard. On the merits of the matter and on the merits of the beer supplied, I have nothing to add to what was said by my noble friend Lord Hughes on the last occasion. I would merely point out that, if this Amendment were carried or this clause rejected, little would be left of the Bill, and therefore on that point I should like to take up what has just been said from the Front Bench opposite. I should have thought that the Scots themselves have given the best indication of their feelings about the present Government, and that the ample representation in the Labour Party of Scottish constituencies, and consequently their overwhelming numbers in another place, was a better answer to the unfounded suggestions that have just been made than any we could otherwise make.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

On a rather lower plane than the two previous speakers, I think there are three reasons why we should not agree to my noble friend's suggestion that Clause 1 should be omitted from the Bill, which I gather is what he wishes.

LORD INGLEWOOD

No, on the contrary.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I gathered that was his original idea. First, the two largest hotels in Carlisle, I believe, are not State managed and State management has been administered in a very different way on the English side of the Border as compared to the Scottish side, and therefore there is not the same stultification for the tourist trade on the English side of the Border as on the Scottish side. Secondly, of the Royal Commissions which looked into this matter 35 years ago—I admit it was a long time ago—the Scottish one was unanimously in favour of abolition of State management in Scotland, whereas the English one was—I speak from memory—split about eight to five. Presumably there was some good reason why the minority were not in favour of the abolition of English State management, although I admit I have not read the Report so I do not know what it was. Then, I believe that all licensing law has been done for the individual country and never has there been a licensing Act applied to both. Therefore, I should have thought that if my noble friend wanted to do this he had better introduce his own Bill for this purpose.

THE EARL OF CROMARTIE

Much of what I was going to say has already been said, so I will not repeat it. I obviously have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend in wanting to extend this measure of freedom and democracy south of the Border. But there are two reasons why, in my view, this could not have been done. When the licensing law of Scotland was consolidated it was done separately from the licensing law consolidation in England, which would, I think—and I was advised—have given considerable legal difficulties. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, I had absolutely no mandate whatsoever from anywhere in England, but I had a very definite mandate from the Cromarty Firth area and Dumfries-shire. I think noble Lords will appreciate that I came down here with this Bill with a very large mandate in my pocket from both those places. I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, very much for supporting me in this matter. I really have nothing more to say as what I would have said has all been adequately said already.

Clause 1 agreed to.

3.10 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:

Minor and consequential amendments of existing law

"The enactments described in the Schedule to this Act are hereby amended or repealed to the extent specified in column 2 thereof."

The noble Lord said: I beg to insert the new clause printed on the Marshalled List. As this is purely a paving Amendment, if it is for the convenience of your Lordships I suggest that we take the Amendment to the Schedule at the same time. May I, however, at this point draw attention to an error in the Schedule. When I come to move the Amendment to the Schedule—I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for having pointed this out to me—the reference to Section 85 in the third line from the end should be omitted.

I think it would be convenient if I dealt with the first three groups of the Amendment, which fall together, and then with the fourth. The first part of the Amendment, In Section 81 the words 'for the purposes of state management of the liquor trade' shall be omitted", is entirely consequential on Clause 1. The effect of this Amendment is to leave out a portion of Section 81. I had better read the section as it stands. It says: The provisions of this section shall have effect for declaring the powers exercisable by the Secretary of State for the purposes of State management of the liquor trade in the districts specified in Part I of the Eighth Schedule to this Act.

The fact that Clause 1 has now been accepted in Committee means that it dispenses with the need for anyone who has obtained a certificate from the licensing courts in the State management districts, or for any club which has been registered by the Sheriff for the State management districts, to obtain authority of the Secretary of State before selling liquor. That is the effect of it. In short, that means that the State management will no longer manage and control the liquor trade in the State management districts, but only those premises in the State management districts which are owned and managed by the State. So that the words for the purposes of State management of the liquor trade are not only unnecessary, but confusing and misleading, and therefore I move for them to be omitted.

The second part of the Amendment deals with amendments which, in my view, are also consequential. It would be at variance with the spirit of the Bill —indeed, it would make a nonsense of it—if the Secretary of State were allowed to retain his power to acquire premises compulsorily, because if that were done, as soon as the licensing courts granted a certificate it would be open to the Secretary of State compulsorily to acquire the premises in question. This power is both unnecessary and anachronistic in Scotland. My noble friend Lord Inglewood, I think it was, or another of my noble friends, drew attention to the fact that there are two large hotels in Carlisle which remain (if I can put it that way) to be compulsorily acquired. But there are no such premises in Scotland holding full licences which could be compulsorily acquired; all this power is entirely spent. So the power is unnecessary in so far as existing licenced premises are concerned, and it would, as I say, be at variance with the spirit of the Bill if it were to be made applicable to premises in respect of which a certificate was granted by the licensing courts.

That goes for the second group of amendments. I might be asked why I have not extended this to land as well. I have not done so because it seems to me that this is neither necessarily consequential nor necessarily minor, and I thought in a Bill of this character that it was much better to limit the Amendments to be made to those which were purely consequential. That is what I am doing. Section 84 would fall with the abolition of the power to acquire premises compulsorily.

The last part of the Amendment deals with a small point in paragraph 16 of the Second Schedule to the 1962 Act. That paragraph reads: In section eighty-two (which restricts the sale and supply of excisable liquor in State management districts), at the end of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following words— '(d) to anything done under the authority of a restaurant or a restricted hotel certificate'".

These were the new types of certificate that were made possible in the 1962 Act. The effect of that paragraph was to make it possible for the licensing courts to give these particular types of certificate—that is, a restaurant certificate and a restricted hotel certificate—without the necessity of the approval of the Secretary of State under Section 82. Now that Section 82 is being removed, that clause is no longer necessary, and I suggest that it ought to be omitted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

THE EARL OE CROMARTIE

All I have to say on this Amendment is that I agree with it, and should like to thank my noble friend for what he has done, which is in effect tidying up the Bill. Being somewhat inexperienced in these matters, I find this most helpful and I am most grateful.

LORD MITCHISON

Since we are told that these are consequential Amendments —though I must not be deemed to agree with that statement entirely—I should like to mention that the noble Earl might care to consider leaving out Section 2(6) of the 1962 Act, if and when the Bill goes any further.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, agreed to.

3.19 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I beg to move that this Amendment, as printed, be agreed to, with the omission of the reference to Section 85, in the last line but two.

Amendment moved— Insert the following Schedule—

"SCHEDULE

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
Enactments Repeal or Amendment
Licensing (Scot-land) Act 1959. 7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 51. In Section 81 the words "for the purposes of state management of the liquor trade" shall be omitted.
In Section 83 the words "any licensed premises in a state management district and any land in such a district" shall be omitted, and there shall be substituted therefor "any land in a state management district"; and subsections (2) and (3) are hereby repealed.
Section 84 is hereby repealed.
Licensing (Scot-land) Act 1962. 10 & 11 Eliz. 2. ch. 51. Paragraph 16 of the Second Schedule is hereby repealed."
—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.