EAST KILBRIDE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (Hansard, 22 June 1976)

§ The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Kirkhill)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now considered on Report—(Lord Kirkhill).

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY
My Lords, before finally allowing this Bill to go we ought to ask the Government for an explanation—a brief explanation, as there is a lot of business before us today—because we had a debate on 2nd March on a similar Bill, the City of Aberdeen District Council Order Confirmation Bill on which the same subject arose. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, agreed that an anomalous situation could arise on that Bill, and now we have another Bill of a similar nature. Moreover, in the debate on 2nd March, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, at column 950, said that he believed he had persuaded the East Kilbride Council not to take this action until they saw what happened under the Government's proposals, and I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was referring to the time when he was a Minister. In fact he was the predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and it was in that capacity that he had endeavoured to pursuade the East Kilbride District Council not to proceed with a Bill of this kind.
Like the Aberdeen Bill, this Bill deals with two unrelated subjects. The first is to give powers to local authorities to hold licences for the sale of liquor and to manage licensed premises. The second, which is somewhat improbably linked with this in the same Bill, is the subject of the seizure of stray dogs. I am addressing myself to the first subject, which is the subject of liquor licensing. There is a Scottish Bill before another place on the whole subject of liquor licensing. When we were debating this 159 subject in March that Bill had not been published, but it had been announced in Her Majesty's gracious Speech.
The background to that situation was that the Clayson Committee had been established some three years ago to look into the whole question of the liquor licensing law in Scotland, in the same way that the Erroll Committee had been invited to look into the state of the law in England and Wales. That Clayson Committee, which incidentally I set up as Secretary of State for Scotland and which reported to me, w as to be legislated upon and its recommendations were to be considered by the Government.
That Bill has been introduced in another place and it is at the Committee stage there. It is subject to amendment; one major Amendment has already been made in Committee, namely—and some of your Lordships may welcome this—to enable public houses to be open on Sundays. That was a recommendation of the Clayson Committee, but it was not in the Government's Bill. The last Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. William Ross, decided he would not adopt that recommendation; but that indicates that the recommendation of the Clayson Committee, and the Bill put before Parliament, may not come out predictably. Certainly the differences of opinion that there have been in another place have not followed Party lines.
My Lords, the point about these Order Confirmation Bills is that if individual Scottish local authorities bring them forward, there could be a waste of their ratepayers' money in the expenses involved in private legislation when they are attempting to carry out something which the Government have already stated they are going to carry out in relation to all local authorities in Scotland. That was enshrined in Recommendation 100 in the Clayson Report, and has been carried into the Bill before another place, which will, in due course, come to your Lordships' House. Therefore, unless there has been some change in the situation, or unless the Government have changed their assessment of what is likely to happen in the future, there should be no need for this Bill to be coming forward from East Kilbride District Council.
160 In the case of the equivalent Aberdeen Bill there were objectors `o what was proposed. The main proposals in that case, as in the East Kilbride case, were that the district council should itself be able to apply for and hold a licence for selling intoxicating liquor, and should manage the premises where such liquor was sold, and the premises were stated in the Aberdeen Bill, and are stated again in this Bill. Because there were objectors in the Aberdeen case, Parliamentary Commissioners conducted an inquiry and reported, recommending an alteration. That alteration was adopted.
So I would ask the noble Lord the Minister, to whom I have given some notice, whether he can tell us whether there were objectors in the case of the East Kilbride Bill, and whether he can also give us an explanation of why it should be coming forward, and also his latest assessment of the situation concerning liquor licensing in Scotland, considering that at the moment there is going through Parliament a Bill which would give local authorities the powers which East Kilbride are seeking in this Bill. I ask him this particularly in view of the remark made by the previous Minister of State, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that he thought he had succeeded in persuading the East Kilbride District Council not to bring forward this private legislation.

§ Lord KIRKHILL
My Lords, I agree that if we are to discuss this just in passing, we both should be brief and I shall attempt to be just that. The East Kilbride Council desire principally to provide refreshments, which include excisable liquor, at the Civic Theatre and at Olympia in East Kilbride. The Civic Theatre is in the course of construction and will be completed later this year. The Olympia is an existing building which has been in the ownership of the district council for a number of years. Likewise, the council wish to provide or arrange for the provision of excisable liquor at golf courses, bowling premises or ice rinks belonging to the district council.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, first, that there have been no objections to the promotion of this order. I am unable to confirm or otherwise whether or not the noble Lord, 161 Lord Hughes, in his recent intervention in debate on 2nd March, was speaking in his capacity presently as the chairman of East Kilbride Development Corporation, or in his capacity previously as Minister of State, Scottish Office. But in whichever capacity the noble Lord sought to speak on that occasion, it is obvious that he has signally not been able to persuade East Kilbride Development Corporation to withdraw their order.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY
My Lords, if I may interrupt, I think the noble Lord made a slip of the tongue. It is not the East Kilbride Development Corporation Order; it is the East Kilbride District Council Order. It is the local authority, not the new town.

§ Lord KIRKHILL
My Lords, I apologise for what was a slip of the tongue, and accept the correction in the spirit that it was given to me. It is undoubtedly true to say that as far as the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 is concerned, the repeal of Section 91(6) now seems to be proceeding in the other place, where presently the Bill is in Committee. But as noble Lords will realise, the state of Parliamentary play these days is such that I do not think any local authority can be absolutely certain that, after vigorous debate, legislation will emerge in quite the manner in which it was introduced in discussion.
I think I must clearly say that under the present law, in order to make it possible for a licence to be obtained for local authority premises, it is necessary to promote a provisional order exempting the premises from Section 91(6). There is precedent in the case of the Kings Theatre, Edinburgh, and the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has just referred, the Aberdeen Provisional Order. The fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has initiated general legislation in the other place does not alter this position, and it follows, therefore, that there is no improper anticipation of general legislation in the promotion by East Kilbride of the order.
My Lords, I would conclude with this comment: in my opinion, increasingly those who are at play in their leisure hours, whether at the golf course, at the 162 bowling green or at the ice rink, very much want the opportunity of modest refreshment, and this provisional order seeks to achieve just that.

§ Lord BALERNO
My Lords, may I support my noble friend. Lord Campbell of Croy in this matter. In Scotland, I have served on one of the committees for the reform of the licensing laws. Also, I happened to be a member of the Parliamentary Commission which gave the decision concerning the Kings Theatre in Edinburgh. All the time that I have had any connection with the reform of the licensing laws, it has been the unanimous feeling that the rules and regulations for licensing in Scotland, so far as it was humanly possible, should be uniform throughout the whole country. In the early part of this century we had a whole variety of licensing arrangements, and there was great confusion. There was great confusion to the tourist board among other things. The main aim of the Guest Committee and the Clayson Committee was to have uniformity in these matters. That is why I would be against allowing East Kilbride to do what they are trying to do just now.
The Kings Theatre, Edinburgh, which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, mentioned, was a quite exceptional case. The general feeling is and always has been that the local authority cannot be judge in its own cause. It was with the greatest hesitation that we approached that in this one case. In the Parliamentary inquiry we turned down the application by Edinburgh to sell liquor at other places and at the Commonwealth Games sports places, but we excluded the Kings Theatre, Edinburgh, because that theatre had been given to the City of Edinburgh for use by a private donor to add to the amenities of Edinburgh. It had a licence when it was given, and it was owned by the City of Edinburgh. To have taken away the licence and introduced new arrangements would have been very inconvenient.
So your Lordships accepted our Report, with this one particular exception, which seemed to be only right in common justice. I would beseech your Lordships not to agree to an exception in the case of East Kilbride at the present moment, especially when a Bill is going through 163 the other place. We can have another look at this order after that Bill has been through the House and decisions have been made.

§ Lord SLATER
My Lords, I apologise to the House; because of this defect from which I am suffering, I did not see the noble Lord standing on his feet. My question arises because of the statement that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and what was said by my noble friend from the Government Front Bench in regard to this particular order. It is a matter of Standing Orders. I should like to know from the Leader of the House whether it is in order for us to debate something which is at the moment the property of another place, going through Committee down there. Can it be debated in this Chamber at the same time as it is being discussed by the other place?

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I could help him, as the Leader of the House is not here. Before this question came up on 2nd March in the case of the Aberdeen Bill, I went into the whole question with the experts, as to whether one could make reference to the other place and proceedings in Committee in the other place. I have again taken the trouble to do that, and I have been told that we are certainly in order and that this is the occasion and the opportunity when we can discuss these matters.
Can I take this opportunity of saying that in the case of Aberdeen there was a special point about His Majesty's Theatre. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, agreed that that was a special case and I also agreed with that; that is why it is somewhat surprising that this case has now come up. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was Lord Provost of Aberdeen for four years, and, if I may say so, distinguished himself in that role; so he was well aware of the situation in Aberdeen. The East Kilbride Bill, which is very similar, does not have the same particular reasons for coming before us.

§ Lord KIRKHILL
My Lords, perhaps I might just say that, of course, a Bill emanating from Aberdeen would quite 164 obviously always have an excellent reason for its promotion. The fact remains, as I attempted to emphasise, that this is a perfectly competent procedure for the local authority concerned. It is fair to say that the Bill is not yet through the other place. If I might just refer to the point made by my noble friend, speaking for myself, I was following our corporate precedent of 2nd March.

The Earl of SELKIRK
My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord this question? If the general Statute is passed, does this particular order fall? Or, supposing they are in conflict, which of them takes precedence?

§ Lord KIRKHILL
My Lords, my understanding is that it would he subsumed by the repeal of Section 91(6) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, assuming that it passed through all stages in the other place.