§ 5.7 p.m.
§ 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 CROYMy Lords, this Bill has one or two unusual features; it calls for some comment and it also prompts some questions. I have, therefore, given the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, notice that I would raise one or two points. He himself was for four years Lord Provost of the City of Aberdeen, and, if I may say so respectfully, personally gave the city distinguished service during that time.
The Bill deals with two subjects which are not obviously connected. The first concerns licensing for sale of liquor on local authority premises, and the second is the seizing of stray dogs. Although technically this is not a Hybrid Bill, I think it might be called a mongrel. The matter to which I must draw your Lordships' attention is licensing. The Bill seeks for the Aberdeen District Council special powers beyond the general powers in legislation, and would enable this particular local authority to serve liquor on certain named premises. The Bill anticipates legislation to cover all other Scottish local authorities regarding liquor licensing. The Bill to do this has been promised in the Queen's Speech for this Session, and we understand that it is to be introduced in a few weeks' time.
The matter which is raised in this Aberdeen Bill is likely to be contentious 948 when the Government's Bill comes before us. This Private Bill was originally an Aberdeen Corporation Provisional Order, and under the Scottish procedure for private legislation two Petitioners objected. They are the British Hotels, Restaurant and Caterers Association and the Scottish Licensed Trade Association. As a result four Commissioners were appointed, including my noble friends Lord Balfour and Lord Gainford. After a public inquiry in Edinburgh in November, the Commissioners recommended modifications to the Bill, which I understand have all been included; in particular, that at two of the premises there should be restaurant licences only.
A significant event during the inquiry was that the Commissioners heard evidence from a Scottish Office official that the Secretary of State for Scotland intended to legislate in the sense of the Aberdeen District's proposals. This was because paragraph 100 of the Clayson Committee's recommendations recommended that local authorities should have greater powers of discretion to sell liquor where this was ancillary to the provision by them of social, cultural or recreational facilities. I would remind your Lordships that the Clayson Committee —which I set up myself when I was Secretary of State for Scotland and which reported to me—is the equivalent of the Erroll Committee in England and Wales.
The Commissioners were clearly concerned to obtain such a statement of the Government's intention, and that was no doubt why they asked for the evidence to be given orally to them by the Scottish Office official. Although everybody recognises that Parliament can amend, or decide differently, when a Government Bill is put before Parliament, none the less the Commissioners were concerned to obtain such a statement about the Government's intention. I should like to ask the Minister whether he will confirm that it is the Government's view that they 949 will legislate in accordance with recommendation No. 100 of the Clayson Committee's Report, because it is also clear that consultations have been, and are still, proceeding with those concerned outside Parliament in the formulation of the Bill. It was made clear that it was the Secretary of State's intention, but that he was none the less involved in consultations which might affect his final draft for the Bill.
The Commissioners have done the work for us at their inquiry, and we are grateful to them. I would not wish in the present case to dissent from their recommendations. There are special circumstances in the case of Aberdeen. The City Corporation suddenly had to acquire His Majesty's Theatre at short notice, otherwise that theatre would not have been able to continue as a theatre. I am sure that a large majority of people in the North of Scotland would agree that it was right that the theatre should have been saved as a theatre. It makes a great contribution in the cultural and dramatic field in that area. In order to own and run the theatre it was necessary to be able to operate a bar and have a licence for it. I do not think that there is argument about that. I do not think that the objectors have objections against a licence for the theatre in those conditions. But what the Aberdeen District Council decided to do was to add some other premises (which are named in the Bill) to the order arising from the situation which the theatre had created. The issue is really around the other premises which have been added.
The theatre situation has led to an anomaly. That is that this Bill is coming before us a few weeks before the general measure in which the Government are proposing to give similar powers to local authorities in Scotland as a whole. The City of Dundee were thinking of taking similar action but recently they decided not to proceed with private legislation—no doubt one consideration was the cost to their ratepayers when they knew, because of the Queen's Speech, that a general measure was shortly to come before Parliament.
I should therefore point out—and the Government may care to comment on this—that it is possible that Aberdeen could be in this anomalous position, if 950 Parliament were to decide not to support the Secretary of State's proposals in this matter and do something different. I would reiterate that there is no dispute about the theatre, but objectors would feel that powers have been granted for other premises in Aberdeen on the understanding that such powers were about to be extended also to all other Scottish local authorities and, in the event, that had not happened. In considering this Bill today, therefore, I think that we should beware of its possible repercussions.
§ Lord HUGHESMy Lords, I should like to come in briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said on this matter. I am aware of the fact that there are other local authorities in Scotland who would wish to have powers along these lines and who, in one case at least, I think I have persuaded not to take action until they saw what happened under the Government's proposals. This is the East Kilbride District Council. Naturally they do not want to spend the ratepayers' money in proposing private legislation if the Government are going to do the job for them.
I am not opposing these proposals for Aberdeen. I just want to express the view that if the Government legislation does not come forward, or does not in fact get on to the Statute Book, Parliament will have created in Aberdeen a precedent which it will be difficult to prevent other district councils from seeking to follow. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend Lord Kirkhill is able to give a pretty firm assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that the Government are to proceed with the legislation as soon as possible in this Session.
§ 5.17 p.m.
§ Lord KIRKHILLMy Lords, I think that it would be helpful to your Lordships if I were to sketch in quite briefly the background to this Bill, and I hope at the same time to assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and my noble friend Lord Hughes that there is a unique situation as befalls the City of Aberdeen District Council. Briefly, the City of Aberdeen District Council are promoting this order which will give the council power to apply for a certificate for the 951 sale of excisable liquor in the "council refreshment rooms". "Council refreshment rooms" are defined as the Beach Ball Room and Restaurant, the Aberdeen Arts Centre, the restaurants belonging to the Council at Duthie Park and Hazel-head Park, and His Majesty's Theatre, Aberdeen.
It had been the intention of the previous authority—the Aberdeen City Corporation—to promote just such an order as this, but it would not at that time (and I talk now of about four years ago) have included His Majesty's Theatre because at that time the theatre was not in the ownership of the then local authority. However, it was decided then that the time was not propitious to move towards such an order. In the intervening years, and very suddenly, the question arose that either the local authority, the then Aberdeen City Corporation, purchased His Majesty's Theatre or the theatre was to be disposed of privately for other use. Quickly the local authority, at significant cost to itself, purchased His Majesty's Theatre, and then equally quickly found that it had a major problem; that is to say, that the previous owner was the licensee and that a No. 1 touring theatre, such as His Majesty's Theatre. Aberdeen, undoubtedly is, could not survive without adequate bar facilities. This obviously led to the promotion of the order before your Lordships' House this afternoon.
As Lord Campbell rightly said, the Clayson Committee, which sat to consider our special Scottish licensing law, recommended in its Report published in August 1973 that Section 132(11) of the Local Government Act 1948—now Section 91(6) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973—should be repealed, thus making it possible for local authorities to supply excisable liquor where it would be ancillary to their provision of social, cultural or recreational facilities. On28th October 1975 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that he proposed to reform the licensing law of Scotland; it is his intention that the legislation should include a provision implementing this Clayson Committee recommendation.
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 952 the premises from Section 91(6), which of course is what Aberdeen is presently doing. Such a step is precedented and I give noble Lords the example of the Kings Theatre, Edinburgh. The fact that the Secretary of State is contemplating general legislation does not alter this position and in my view there is no improper anticipation of general legislation in Aberdeen's promoting of this order.
It is reasonable to say that the preparation of the Aberdeen order was proceeding at the same time as Ministers were reaching decisions on the Clayson Report. As Lord Campbell rightly said, the proposals were objected to, thus bringing the matter to inquiry by Parliamentary Commissioners. With the agreement of Ministers, the Scottish Office submitted observations at the inquiry on 4th November 1975; these were submitted to the Commissioners appointed to conduct the inquiry. No comment was made on whether liquor should be sold or supplied in the particular cases which were the subject of the order, it being for the Promoters to make their case to the Commissioners. As a result of the inquiry, the Commissioners recommended that the order should be made subject to the modification that certificates granted in respect of the restaurants at Duthie Park and Hazelhead Park should be restricted to restaurant certificates; the order contains these restrictions.
To sum up, there are precedents for orders of this kind and, in my view, the promotion of this order is not an improper anticipation of the Clayson Committee recommendations. It is clear that the Promoters have made their case for the proposals to the Parliamentary Commissioners and that it has been accepted by the Commissioners subject to the modifications to which I referred. I appreciate that Lord Campbell and Lord Hughes referred to what could be an anomalous position if this Order were approved and, subsequently, Parliament did not sustain the view that the section to which I referred should be repealed. An anomalous situation would certainly occur in those circumstances, but I believe that a majority in Parliament will support this particular appeal as recommended in the Clayson recommendations.
Perhaps I might end these brief remarks with a personal word. I was very conscious during my time as Lord Provost 953 of Aberdeen how vital His Majesty's Theatre was to the social and cultural life of the whole of the North of Scotland. It really is because the theatre was suddenly found to be in the possession of the local authority and equally suddenly found to be without real provision for a licence as a result of the change of ownership that initiative was given to the then Aberdeen Corporation, subsequently carried on by Aberdeen District Council, for the promotion of this Bill; and I thought that Lord Campbell was more than generous in his personal remarks about my tenure of office as Lord Provost.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, I am sure that I speak for others in saying that I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving that account and, as I indicated at the outset of my remarks, he is on home ground having been Lord Provost up to last May. May I ask the noble Lord to answer the question I asked about the timing of the Bill. When is the Bill expected to be introduced into Parliament? There are rumours that it will reach us before Easter, but they are only rumours. Is it possible for him to say whether the Bill will come first to this House or to the other place?
§ Lord KIRKHILLMy Lords, I fear that I am unable to give a direct reply to those two questions. I can only say that the Bill will be before Parliament quite soon.
§ Baroness PHILLIPSMy Lords, as an Englishwoman, may I ask the Minister why it is called His Majesty's Theatre? Does it refer to a Scottish King, or do we have devolution already?
§ Lord KIRKHILLThe theatre was built in 1903, my Lords, in the reign of King Edward.
§ Lord HUGHESMy Lords, would it not be quite unreasonable to expect an Aberdonian to go to the expense of changing the theatre's name every time there was a woman on the Throne?
§ Lord KIRKHILLMy Lords, I can certainly confirm what my noble friend Lord Hughes says; indeed, we do not even illuminate the place.