Lords Sitting of 28 October 1976

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
The Lord Kinross—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

"MUGGING": POLICE MEASURES
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the number of convictions for mugging offences in the United Kingdom during the period 1970–75; whether they are satisfied that the police forces are adequately equipped to achieve more positive results in addition to the excellent work which they have already done; and what plans they have in mind to put these measures into effect.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will circulate in the Official Report a Table showing the number of persons found guilty of robbery or assault with intent to rob over the period requested in England and Wales. "Mugging" is a term which has no legal definition. The offences of robbery or assault with intent to rob include robberies of personal property following sudden attack in the open, and they include other types of robbery as well. Also some of the offences classed in the criminal statistics as "theft from the person of another" may involve some degree of violence. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has informed my right honourable friend of the special attention, including high priority in manning, that he has been giving to policing in the areas of London where this is a special problem, and I have no doubt that other chief officers of police are doing likewise.
Following is the Table referred to:

PERSONS FOUND GUILTY OF ROBBERY OR OF ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO ROB

No. of Persons

1970

2,612

1971

2,999

1972

3,415

1973

3,159

1974

2,767

1975

3,458

Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that lucid Answer. May I first declare an interest of a deficit financial nature, if one could put it that way, in that three years ago, I was a victim of a mugging attack. May I put a few supplementary questions to the noble Lord? First, is he aware that, in my case, due to their carelessness the cowards concerned were apprehended and sentenced? Is the noble Lord further aware that I am, and I am sure the whole House is, very grateful to the police all over the country for what they have done with very limited resources in apprehending these very undesirable people.
If I may make one suggestion to the noble Lord in the form of a question, may I ask him whether the deployment of more police on foot duty with police dogs, particularly in the areas where these offences take place most frequently, will not be a very severe deterrent to these people? Finally, does the noble Lord think that more liaison between the community race committees, the police and the indigenous communities in these areas would be particularly beneficial?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am sure we are all glad that those who attacked the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, were apprehended. So far as the questions he has put to me are concerned, first with regard to foot patrols and whether there can be more foot patrols in the areas where these problems exist, as the noble Lord and the House will be aware, there has been a striking improvement in recruitment of the Metropolitan Police over the last year and a half. There has been a net increase of 100 a month this year, which has enabled the Commissioner to have more resources at his disposal to deal with the problem. On the second point, whether there can be more local liaison between the police and local community relations organisations, such liaison representatives exist in the Metropolitan Police divisions, and there is a commander at Scotland Yard who deals with this matter on a full-time basis.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister tell me and the House, even though it may be a matter more appropriate to his noble and learned friend, whether it is the case that delays in bringing accused persons to trial are beginning to mount up in the metropolis? Is it not a fact that one of the things the Government can do is to reduce the period between committal and arraignment so that fewer of these people are abroad before they are tried?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords; I noted with interest the point which the noble and learned Lord raised yesterday evening on the Bail Bill. I will certainly look into the matter. I was recently discussing this matter with the Judiciary, but this is a matter for my noble and learned friend. I will look into it, and either I or my noble and learned friend will write to him.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord the Minister agree that this is a matter which must be left in the hands of the police force and that any attempt to form bands of private citizens to deal with this problem might be conducive to public disorder?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for his remarks. It is the task of the police and not of any local self-appointed body to deal with law breakers. Your Lordships will have seen a statement issued on behalf of the Metropolitan Police in which they welcome the traditional assistance which they have received from members of the public. But they are firmly against any vigilante groups being formed. That is also the view of the Government.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in view of the fact—and I believe it to be a fact—that many young people are being accused of these offences and also of shoplifting, is it not possible for those responsible for our education facilities to give the occasional short lectures in schools on the subject of civilised behaviour? Is there not a responsibility on the members of the teaching profession to help in this matter?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think we all have to play a part in dealing with what is a very serious problem not only in London but in a number of centres outside London. The precise terms of the question are a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I will draw her attention to it.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister feel that the police are adequately paid for the very great services that they give to this country? I hope that they are, and will be, adequately paid for all they do in trying to keep law and order in this country. We ought to be very grateful to them.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords; we all recognise the debt which we owe to the police. But on the particular question which the noble Baroness has raised, which is rather wider than the one on the Order Paper, it is only right to say that the police received a pay increase of 30 per cent. instead of the £6 at the end of last year.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why, when, he and other Ministers reply to Questions is of this sort, they never refer to the Special Constabulary, who do not get paid at all, or to their value, not as a substitute for but as a backup to the regular police? Is he aware that the noble Lord on my left was a special constable for 20 years, and in his day there was no trouble on this front?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am grateful for that point. I know the interest which the noble Lord takes in the Special Constabulary and he knows that I share his interest in this matter. Indeed, I share his view of the importance of the Special Constabulary. I am aware that I gave a very long Answer to the initial Question, but nevertheless, I take this opportunity of joining with the noble Lord in saying that, if people want to be of assistance to the police, they can make themselves available for the Special Constabulary, which does most important work on behalf of the entire community.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would agree that this problem is not to be solved entirely by increasing the number of police and the number of convictions scored against those who commit the offences, but by preventing the offences from being committed in the first place, and that one of the contributions which the Government could make towards a solution would be an early announcement of a comprehensive strategy for dealing with urban disadvantage from which so much of this crime stems?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, right in saying that a larger number of wide social issues are involved in this matter than simply those which have been ventilated this afternoon. Nevertheless I think that, given the very difficult problem that exists in certain parts of London, it is extremely helpful that there has been this significant improvement in recruitment to the police, who are our first line of defence in dealing with problems of this sort. But I agree with the noble Lord that there are wider problems and the Government are addressing their minds to them.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware so far as the magistracy is concerned that, due to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, the punitive measures which magistrates are able to take in dealing with these offences are completely inadequate? We are able only to send a child to a detention centre—and he comes out in six weeks—or to borstal for nine months, to fine him or put him in the care of the local authority. This in the view of, I would say, a majority of the magistrates in this country is completely inadequate for these offences.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had a meeting only yesterday with representatives of the Magistrates' Association to discuss some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness. But I must say I would not altogether accept her judgment of this matter. I am well aware, of course, that there is this anxiety about the 1969 Act, but I think I should draw her attention to the fact that, as a result of the terms of Section 53 of
624
the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, a child or young person found guilty of a grave crime on indictment, for an offence carrying 14 years or more imprisonment if applied to an adult, can be detained for a period of up to life imprisonment. Indeed, in these particular cases about which there has been a fair degree of publicity in recent days, two of those who appeared before the learned judge received sentences of three years' detention, one received a sentence of five years, and another received a sentence of seven years.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would agree that to pass a sentence which is suspended only encourages the young people themselves? I am talking about children of 14 and 15. They go out and do it again, and it is quite impossible to stop them at this stage.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have indicated two things. First of all, I accept that there is this anxiety about the 1969 Act, and that is one of the reasons why the Government recently published their White Paper and why my right honourable friend met representatives of the Magistrates' Association. Nevertheless, I think it is right to point out that some of those who received the sentences which I have just outlined were 16 or 17.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me, we have had nearly 12 minutes on the first Question. I think the feeling of the House is that we should proceed to the next Question.

DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION FUNDS
3.18 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they will be in a position to announce the criteria for the allocation of the funds at present earmarked by the Overseas Development Ministry for the furtherance of development education.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development hopes to make a full statement on this and related matters shortly.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that slightly obscure Answer, may I ask him, to start with, whether he will tell us what exactly "shortly" means? Secondly, would he agree that we are speaking of sums of money already voted and in hand, and the fact that they are not yet available, and that those who could expect to receive them do not know whether they will, is beginning to have a deleterious effect in the area of development education to which they are supposed to be allocated?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I cannot put a specific date on the announcement by my right honourable friend, but I do assure the noble Lord that this is in no way a term of art to cover up delay. We are intending to move to this announcement as soon as possible. On his second point, I think he will be aware that there has been a Working Party, and discussions have taken place between my right honourable friend and representatives of the voluntary agencies. I can agree with him that the sums of money that have been discussed as needing to be made available for development education are sums which have already been voted within the aid budget. I agree with him that the voluntary agencies will wish to know as soon as possible what particular sums for particular projects will be available to them.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to go a little further and accept that a date for publication was generally expected in September, and again earlier this month? Therefore, there is some impatience in this field. May I ask him whether he is aware in particular that the World Development Movement, which is an organisation supported by five denominations of the Christian Church, including the Established Church, is preparing a campaign, to run in 1978, to enable people to judge how best they should stand in relationship to the Third World? It is now becoming of great moment to them to know whether they can put the planning of this in hand before it becomes too late to carry it out in that autumn.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I know the sense of urgency among the voluntary agencies, and I share it. We are all impatient to get on with this, and indeed I have played my own voluntary part in the World Development Movement so I am entirely with them in wishing to further their programme. I think I must ask the noble Lord to exercise a little more patience, but not a great deal more.
Lord PEDDIE: My Lords, might I ask my noble friend if he would be willing to transmit to the Government the need for consideration of new principles in the determination of the criteria; that is, a greater emphasis upon the provision of technical education in those countries that will assist in development, rather than the more academic pursuits that have been encouraged all too often in the past?
Lord ORAM: My Lords. I will certainly convey that point of view of my noble friend. But, if I may say so, he has mistaken the purpose of the Question. The Question is about development education; that is, education on development matters in this country. That is what the Question and the exchanges have been about, and not the deployment of funds for education in developing countries. That does not mean that I do not agree with ray noble friend in what he has said.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the anxiety felt in polytechnics in central London at the increased cost to overseas students engaged on technological courses in this country as a result of increased fees which the local authorities have had to impose?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, while I am aware of those anxieties, it is a different question, if I may say so again. Development education, I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, intends and this is the sense in which I have answered him, is education about the development problem in developing countries. It is that that the noble Lord and I have been discussing in the last few minutes.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I, in conclusion, briefly ask the noble Lord whether he will as soon as possible let me know how long in fact "short" is?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I shall do so as soon as possible.
Lord HALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether it is a fact that in what he now refers to as development education there were something like 10,000 empty unqualified places in agriculture at the last distribution of places at universities and higher schools?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, with respect, that is another question somewhat similar to that voiced by the noble and learned Lord opposite.

COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY: MEMBERSHIP
3.24 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government who are to be the officials and members of the Commission for Racial Equality and from what ethnic groups will they be drawn.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the House will know that Mr. David Lane has accepted an invitation to become chairman of the new Commission. In appointing members, including deputy chairmen, my right honourable friend will have in mind that they should reflect a wide range of experience and background and while no one will be appointed to represent a particular ethnic group the Commission will include a substantial number of members drawn from the minority communities. The appointment of the staff of the Commission is not a matter for my right honourable friend.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not the case that a rather unfortunate psychology was first caused because the four directors publicly announced were all white persons? Is it not desirable that there should be real partnership between the communities if we are to have success in this matter? Is it the case, as reported yesterday, that Mr. Lane has now agreed that two of the
628
new directors should be appointed from non-white persons and the majority of the 14 Commissioners?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I first of all agree with my noble friend that what all of us are seeking in this matter is a real partnership, and I entirely share his view. But I must emphasise that the appointment of staff is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the chairman of the Commission, and I think that is the right way to approach this. I am quite sure that the chairman of the Commission will take note of what my noble friend has said.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, could the Minister tell us whether, as the original and principal Creator of unequal races, it is proposed that a representative of Almighty God should be included on this Commission?

THE SEVESO DISASTER: INFORMATION EXCHANGE
3.26 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are able to keep themselves fully informed as to the consequences of the accident at the Icmesa plant near Seveso, Italy, on 10th July, and of the nature of remedial action being taken; and whether they are partaking in a mutual exchange of information.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government responded immediately to requests from the Italian authorities for information and advice on the toxicology and measurement of TCDD. As the scale of pollution became clear, the advice broadened to involve methods of decontamination and the protection of personnel. There have been exchange visits of experts and a useful feedback of information. We were fully represented at a meeting organised by the EEC on 30th September and 1st October 1976 in Milan, at which the problems created by the Seveso disaster were fully discussed.
Lord HALE: My Lords, while very sincerely thanking the noble Lord for that excellent statement, and congratulating Her Majesty's Government on the possession of one of the outstanding world experts on this complicated toxic problem, may I ask whether he would first of all make sure that manufacture is not continuing at all in the United Kingdom? Secondly, will he satisfy himself that the provisions which were taken for decontamination of the area affected by the explosion of 1968 are still working, and that they are again reviewed? Will he thirdly realise and say that however great this tragedy, it could have been very much greater? In this we are dealing with matters over which no chemist knows the control. Might he consider going to Vietnam to talk to the experts there who unfortunately for years have acquired tragic experience of the effects of defoliation?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think I should first say that the process that was going on here at Bolsover where we had the disaster, although similar to that going on in Italy, was somewhat different. Our plant was designed to prevent the kind of disaster which occurred in Italy. Secondly, I would point out that since the Italian disaster the manufacturers who carried on that process at Bolsover have announced that it has been discontinued, so that the process which gave rise to the disaster in Italy is not being carried on in this country at all. So far as the question is concerned with the 1968 disaster, I shall communicate my noble friend's observations to my right honourable friend.

BUSINESS STATEMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. I will make a short Statement on Business.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.30 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, that the Report be now received—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Licensing boards]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (4) to (7) and insert—
(4) Subject to subsections (9) and (13) below, a licensing board shall consist of not less than one-quarter of the total number of members of the district or islands council and in no case shall consist of less than five such members.
(5) Where a district or islands are a is divided into licensing divisions, then unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs, not less than one-third of the members of the licensing board for a licensing division shall be councillors for a ward or electoral division within the area of the licensing division.
(6) The members of a licensing board for a district or licensing division of a district shall be elected at the first meeting of the district council held after the ordinary election of that council in 1977 and, in the case of subsequent elections, at the first meeting of the council held after each subsequent ordinary election of the council.
(7) The members of a licensing board for an islands area or licensing division of an islands area shall be elected at a meeting of the council of the islands area to be held on a date between 16th May 1977 and 30th June 1977 to be determined by the council, and, in the case of subsequent elections, at the first meeting of the council held after each subsequert ordinary election of the council.
(8) The term of office of members of a licensing board shall begin with the day of their election under subsections (6) and (7) above and shall end on the day of the next election of members of the licensing board, but any member of a board shall be eligible for reelection.
(9) A member of a licensing board who has ceased to be a member of the authority by whom he was appointed by reason of an ordinary election to the council of that authority shall continue to be a member of the board until the first meeting of the council after the election.
(10) Any casual vacancy arising in a licensing board from death, resignation, disqualification or other cause may be filled by the election of a duly qualified person at the first meeting of the appointing council following upon the vacancy, and members so elected shall hold office until the date of the next meeting for election to the board.
(11) If a licensing board is not elected at the time at which it ought to be elected, or an insufficient number of members is elected for a board, the Secretary of State may by order provide for the holding of a fresh election or elections for supplying such fault or deficiency in election at such times and in such manner as he may think expedient.
(12) No election held in pursuance of this Act shall be deemed to be vitiated in consequence of any technical defect in the proceedings which has not been prejudicial to the interests of any party concerned in such election.
(13) For the purposes of any proceedings at the quarterly meeting in March in the final year of office of members of a licensing board which are not finally disposed of before the expiry in that year of the term of office of the members, the members of the licensing board in office at the date of the said meeting shall, notwithstanding such expiry, be deemed to constitute the licensing board.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment would restore the responsibility for acting as members of licensing boards to district and islands councillors, as was the Government's original intention. The Clayson Committee considered this matter very fully. The Clayson Report makes it clear that the Committee thought it desirable that the local authority itself should act as the licensing authority but that they accepted that there were practical difficulties in this course of action. What they recommended, therefore, was a system which was workable and would establish licensing boards to be serviced by district and islands councils and their officials.
The Bill as brought from the other place implemented this recommendation and I hope that it can now be restored to its original form. We have decided that licensing decisions should be in the hands of elected members. This recognises that the decisions are not of a kind suitable for a court of law, and that the right people to make the decisions are those who are elected to represent the interests of the local population seems to us selfevident. We have, of course, been concerned, as I mentioned in Committee, to introduce safeguards to lessen the risk of improper behaviour. We have made some changes which we hope will be useful. Clause 19 creates a new criminal offence of canvassing of members of the licensing board by the applicant. We hope that this should prove effective in ruling out any efforts to influence decisions made by licensing boards. And Clause 39 makes provisions for the exercise of rights of appeal to the sheriff and sets out the grounds of appeal as well as the powers of the sheriff on upholding an appeal.
Clause 39 seems to me to provide a further reason for preferring local councilors
632
to justices of the peace as members of the licensing boards since it would be an odd argument and a peculiar arrangement which involved the appointment of board members by the sheriff principal or the sheriff under Clause 1 and an appeal to the sheriff under Clause 39. I think that it is better to define the respective roles of the local authority and the sheriff, as the Bill will do in Clauses 1 and 39 if my Amendment is accepted. We are satisfied that directly elected members can do what is required to operate the licensing system.
I am bound to point out, though I would not wish to make it a major part of my argument, that the subsections added to the Bill in your Lordships' Committee are not satisfactory. There is no ordinary election of islands councils in 1977; the next ordinary election in their case is in 1978. That is one defect, and it highlights an illogicality in the Amendment as introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in Committee. If justices of the peace are appointed, there is really no need to tie the periods of their appointment to elections of local authorities. But as I say, that is a small part of my argument. I rest my case on the points I have made and I hope that the House will agree to revert to the original wording. I beg to move.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, threw down the gauntlet in his very first words when he said that licensing decisions should be the responsibility of the elected representatives. My whole feeling is to the opposite; that the elected representatives as such are not the fit and proper people also to adjudicate on the award of licences. If the Amendment is accepted, the licensing board will become just another committee of a local authority. The members of it will be drafted on to it in precisely the same way as they are drafted on to other committees of the local authority, and their decisions are bound to reflect their mutual preferences, partial affections and antagonisms.
Objection was taken to this proposal both by the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Church of Scotland, both of which significantly said they thought that this should be within the jurisdiction of the sheriff, and the Church of Scotland

633
said that if it was not within the jurisdiction of the sheriff, it should be within the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace. The Clayson Committee certainly recommended what Lord Kirkhill has put forward now, but they did so with some hesitation, and they did it knowingly before the Bill to reform the local justice of the peace courts in Scotland was in existence. They did, however, know that there were proposals along these lines and they entered a very strong caveat at that point.
The Bill, which passed through your Lordships' House and which was quite thoroughly debated, set up the district courts based on a new conception for Scotland of the justices of the peace. We are trying by that Bill to bring our justices of the peace and our district courts up to the same level that has been enjoyed for so long in England. In Scotland the justices of the peace were a very pale shadow of the justices of the peace in England.
This measure now puts the onus on the sheriff to supervise the courts and, still more important, the justices of the peace are in future to give an undertaking—in fact, they have given it and have started to carry it out—to take courses so that they can better execute their job. The justices of the peace are being divided into those who have taken the course and those who have not as those who have been educated properly in their duties are the ones envisaged in the provision which Lord Kirkhill seeks to delete and for which he has produced a substitute.
This is a subject in which I have had a considerable interest for a long period, since I first served on the licensing committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest. That takes us back 16 or 17 years. I was at that time also a member of a local authority. On that local authority—I was also a member of a licensing court—I could suspect that malpractices were taking place. This was at a time when the brewers were trying to buy up every possible licence and the malpractice that was taking place fairly blatantly at that time, though it took a little time to prove it, was that a licence would be granted to somebody who was a relative or a friend of a member of the local authority, and two years later that licence would be sold to a brewer. That
634
happened not once but several times, and it was naturally a very difficult thing to prove. When I raised my suspicions about this in the committee presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, I was rightly put down because I could adduce no legal proof of any malpractice whatsoever, though I had the sympathy of some other members of the committee.
The ink was hardly dry on the report of the Guest Committee when a major case of malpractice came up it the City of Glasgow. This was a fairly bad case involving a member of the Glasgow Corporation. Since then, there have been several cases in Scotland of malpractice by local authority members. I shall not go into the details but will just say that they have caused some embarrassment to the Government owing to local authority by-elections having had to be held with unfavourable results to the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, made the point that it is important to have local knowledge on the courts or the boards as they are now to be called. If justices of the peace are appointed, about half of them will also be members of the local authority, so that the local authority view will be presented. But that will be balanced under my proposals by a number of justices of the peace who will have been trained in the law and in procedure. I believe that that will make for a much better balance and judgment of this rather difficult problem.
There is one other major reason which I gave for the proposals that I made in Committee and which are now incorporated in the Bill. It is that in Clause 123 the local authorities are being given power to grant licences to themselves. This, as I was instructed by the noble and. learned Lord, Lord Guest, many years ago, is against an important principle, at any rate in Scottish law, that one cannot be a judge in one's own cause. This provision makes the local authority a judge in its own cause. I believe that that is something that should not be allowed. I have taken up much too much time on this point but it is a subject into which I was unwillingly pitchforked 17 years ago, as I said, and I have been unable to shake it off. I hope to do so soon.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this Amendment affects the composition of the new Scottish licensing boards proposed by the Government. There has been criticism—with which I joined—about the composition originally proposed by the Government. The suggestion was that the boards should consist entirely of councillors. My noble friend Lord Balerno has given some of the reasons for the opposition to that proposal. In Committee, I and other noble Lords supported my noble friend on this and, in the Conservative Party, there has been a free vote in another place and also here. My noble friend's views were persuasive and he got a majority in the Committee. But I must point out that the change which my noble friend suggested and which the Government are now proposing to reverse would have meant that the whole character of the licensing boards would have been transformed and this affects the rest of the Bill. Therefore, I feel that if my noble friend were to insist on opposing the present Amendment at this very late stage, this would be not a revision but something which went a good deal further. The Bill would have been framed differently in later clauses and, indeed, should in many cases now be framed differently. So I hope that my noble friend, who has made his case both in Committee and again here today from his wealth of experience in this field, will not insist on pressing his opposition to the Amendment.

PARLIAMENTARY SESSION EXTENSION
3.47 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall make a short Statement on Business. The House will wish to know that Her Majesty the Queen has agreed to open the next Session of Parliament not on Wednesday, 17th November but on Wednesday, 24th November. As this change has only just been made, I am sure that noble Lords will understand that I cannot today make a Statement about the detailed adjustments to the Parliamentary timetable that we shall now be able to make.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, it would be churlish not to acknowledge that there has been some movement on
636
the Government's part, and I congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, on making their colleagues face reality. But, of course, I have no idea whether this is enough. None of us on this side of the House has any idea whether a further week will be enough for us to complete the enormous backlog of business that still remains for this House to discuss. Whether or not it is enough may very well depend upon the attitude of another place to many of our Amendments and what they decide to do about them. So though we shall of course continue to work as hard as we can, there can be no guarantee from this side of the House that we shall complete the business by the time when the noble Baroness has told us that Her Majesty has said she will open Parliament.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, for what they have been able to do, but I must tell them that, in our view, this is totally unrealistic. We cannot possibly, in one extra week, deal with these major measures and the rejection by the Commons of many of the Amendments that we have sent down to them. We have just seen an example of this. I can only say to the Government that I hope that they will think again. The alternative, as I outlined on Tuesday, would be to drop at least one and possibly two major measures. If the Government will not consider this, we must consider whether we cannot assist them by opposing at least one of them on Third Reading.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I should never accuse the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, of churlishness. I may think him very forthright and he will not mind if I am forthright in return. Equally, I should never accuse the noble Lord, Lord Byers, of being an Oliver Twist. Nevertheless, I feel that both noble Lords are asking a great deal of the Government. I have always believed in the dedication of this House on all sides to its constitutional duties. Noble Lords will understand that the Government have an important programme of legislation and that it is our firm intention to complete it. I believe that, with good will and with the usual good sense and constitutional propriety of

637
this House, we shall be able to manage, with the discussions through the usual channels, in our normal, sensible way.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether she believes that the extension of a week would make a substantial difference? Although I would not suggest that the Government should withdraw their legislation, there are some of us on this side—and I do not speak only for myself—who have doubts about some features of the legislation that has come before us; for example, the matter of ship repairing associated with the proposal to take over the shipbuilding industry and also some features of the Dock Work Regulation Bill. It would seem to me that if the Government could be satisfied with the acceptance of the principle of nationalisation of shipbuilding per se and the substantial philosophy underlying the Dock Work Regulation Bill, we might get through the business expeditiously. We talk about a mixed economy, and in the context of a mixed economy it is possible to effect something in the nature of a compromise. That would help us, if not to solve the problem, at least to make an approach to a solution.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's question I believe, and any reasonable noble Lord must also believe, that a whole extra week will make a substantial difference in helping to finish our business. I am sure that my noble friend will not wish me to enter into a debate on the philosophy underlying the different Bills. I have never known any legislation not to raise doubts in the minds of noble Lords or indeed honourable gentlemen who are discussing it. After all that is what we are here for. Of course it raises doubts, but we are here to discuss, debate and to adjust; we are here to do it properly, and I am quite sure we shall.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, will the noble Baroness recall that until last night there had been quite a chance of an ugly little dispute between the two Houses on the subject of the Bail Bill but it was entirely avoided by the good will of her noble friends sitting on the Left and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Is that not a way in which the Government by discussion can get their business more
638
easily by arrangement, and by give and take on both sides?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think the whole House always pays tribute to the charm and skill of the noble and learned Lord; if anybody can effect a compromise he can. We approach legislation in exactly the same spirit by reasonable compromises, my Lords, always.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, in the circumstances would the Government contemplate any curtailment of the winter recess?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am sure that would be a very unpopular suggestion and I am afraid I cannot answer it.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.55 p.m.
Report stage resumed on Amendment No. 1.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the debate on this cause. I supported my noble friend Lord Balerno in the Committee which discussed this Bill. It is a pity that the Government have not seen fit to meet us in some way on the suggestion put forward by my noble friend Lord Balerno. He suggested that not only those people who are elected members through local government should be appointed to the licensing board, but that there should also be, as there has been in the past, people who are appointed as JPs and who need not necessarily have been elected but who have great experience. I was a JP and was also on the committee that recommended to the JP committee the names of those to be appointed. It is a way of getting support, interest and skill from people who are not in local government. They do not want to be in local government or have not the time, or their interests lie elsewhere but they have very much at heart the interests of the area in which they live.
After we discussed this matter in our Committee, I hoped that the Government would see their way to make a mixture of

639
so many appointed JPs and so many local government representatives. In this way we would get a better cross section, a wider coverage of interests, and would also avoid what my noble friend Lord Balerno has drawn attention to; that is, that in spite of one hoping that it will not happen, a certain amount of jiggerypokery goes on in connection with the granting of licences, and influence is brought to bear on people to see that they get licences. Nobody wants that to continue or to be a possibility. It would have been wiser if the noble Lord would have seen his way to meet the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Balerno and those who supported him in the Committee by having a mixture of elected representatives, who may of course also be JPs, and those outside who are appointed as JPs on the licensing court. I am disappointed that our efforts in the Committee should have met with this refusal.
The Earl of CROMARTIE: My Lords, having been on licensing courts and local government for many years, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in opposing this Amendment which, at least in my part of the world, is completely unnecessary. What happens in Glasgow I would not know; maybe it does not make very much difference. The same people usually go on to these committees, and over a great number of years I have found no trace of any skulduggery of any kind. It is perfectly sound as it stands. I cannot think of any members from my particular area who are not utterly reliable. I certainly support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and I believe that it would be a mistake to press this.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, for two reasons I do not much like the arrangement suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, in this Bill. One is that I do not like local authorities licensing themselves. It is a big principle. I am not saying that they will make a mess of it but it is the wrong way of doing it. I have no doubt that in most local authorities these licensing courts will be appointed very much as bailees were appointed—after a certain period you will go on for three years and come off again. I do not
640
think it is a very good idea for licensing courts either.
The point I would stress is that in effect this is a subcommittee of the local authority. How will the noble Lord prevent the local authority having influence, if not control, over the licensing committee? One thing he cannot do is to stop them discussing it. I cannot see how the local authority can avoid discussing the decisions of one of its subcommittees. There is nothing here to say so or to indicate that this is a quite separate organisation.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, if I may intervene to keep the noble Lord within the bounds of his own argument. The licensing board and its decisions ill not form part of a subcommittee of the full district council.
The Earl of SELKIRK: The noble Lord says so, but I do not see why it should not, and there is nothing in the Bill to stop it. The only thing I can see is that immediately they have made a determination they will tell the Secretary of State, and that puts a chopper on to some extent, I accept. But that would not stop comments, and so far as I can see it would not stop criticism, and this is a pity. I do not know whether the noble Lord can suggest a way to avoid this, but it should he avoided if possible. I am not going to press the matter further, but I think that it is important in regard to the relationship. This cannot be entirely an administrative matter. It is to some extent a judicial matter on which the licensing court has to form its personal judgment on a variety of factors. If the noble Lord can explain that point I should be delighted.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I think that as we consider my Amendment your Lordships should keep very much to the forefront of your minds the fact that the Government seek to implement the Clayson Report at this point. I should like very briefly to cast back the minds of your Lordships to the Clayson period; unquestionably all were agreed that Scots licensing required to be reformed. Clayson was given that task and the Government are in process, in regard to my Amendment, of accepting one of Clayson's major decisions. I should certainly say to

641
the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, that if he is particularly worried about the possibility of malpractice—and I think that even with magistrates' courts, which in the past have sought to administer Scots licensing law, there can always be an argument that the hint of malpractice is just possible—I can direct him to Clause 19 which creates a new criminal offence of canvassing of the members of the board by an applicant. I would ask the noble Lord to address his mind to Clause 39, which gives rights of appeal in these situations, which spells out the grounds of appeal and gives the powers of the sheriff in the manner in which lie can uphold the appeal.
I should like to say to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that the licensing board will act with powers; it is an autonomous body in that regard. In my intervention I sought to suggest that. The noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, who is the convenor of a very important council in the North of Scotland, has said very clearly how much he supports Clayson and the Government view here. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who is a former Secretary of State for Scotland, and under whose aegis Clayson was created, has said that if we were to accept the position of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, that would seriously undermine a number of continuing principles throughout the Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Of course I made it clear that I should have preferred a different composition, but I think that it is very late now to try to make this kind of change.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, this has been a period in Government when one has occasionally to try to make a debating point if only to sustain one's own continuing endeavour, and that was all I was attempting to do. However, I have stated very clearly what is the Government view. I cannot usefully add to my comment and I certainly hope that my Amendment will achieve the purpose to which I have referred.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to take him up on the point about the possibility of malpractice and his answer
642
to that, which was that a clause had been put in about canvassing. So far as I am aware and so far as my recollection goes, I have never heard of a malpractice of canvassing coming to the surface. So far as this clause has been put in and is probably a valuable clause, it does not affect the situation in any way as I have described it. I have listened to the advice given by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and I am aware of the vast experience he has had. I have also listened to the plea from the Government side of the House today, and rather than prolong the proceedings and thus increase the difficulties which are impending I advise my noble friends not to vote against the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Disqualification of interested persons]:
4.5 p.m.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert—
"( ) A member of a licensing board shall not act in the granting of a licence in respect of which he is or would be a competent objector under the provisions of section 16 of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not take the recent Business Statement which we have heard as an invitation to lengthen my speech in any way, and I can be brief on this. In moving this Amendment it is only fair at the outs et that I should say that I raised this at Committee stage and that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and I have corresponded on the matter since. The Bill, in Clause 2, states specific grounds which would debar a board member from acting on a grant of licence. My grounds for recommending an Amendment to the effect that,
"A member of a licensing board small not act in the granting of a licence in respect of which he is or would be a competent objector under the provisions of Section 16 of this Act",
are that if one refers to Clause 16 of the Bill it is quite apparent that a board member could be a competent objector to an application.
The Bill does not re-enact the unrestricted right, contained in the 1959 Act, for a member of a licensing authority to object to an application coming before him. It would seem that, if that right is no longer

643
considered appropriate, the board member in question henceforward should not act when he could competently object. If the Amendment I propose is not made, surely there could be argument that grounds for an appeal against a refusal of a licensing board to grant a licence might arise from obvious personal interest of one or more board members. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, this Amendment would disqualify a member of a licensing board from acting in the granting of a licence if he is, or would be, a competent objector to the grant under Clause 16. The Amendment would disqualify a member of a licensing board from acting on any application in respect of which he is, or would be, a competent objector under the same clause. He would be a competent objector under Clause 16 if he owned or occupied property situated in the neighbourhood of the premises to which the application related.
The question for your Lordships' House is whether a board member's status as a competent objector to an application for a licence should disqualify him from taking part in the board's consideration of that application. On this matter we in Government are given a lead in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, Section 41(4) of which expressly provides that the interest of a member of a local authority in a contract or other matter solely as a ratepayer or inhabitant of the area shall not disqualify him from taking part or voting in the authority's discussion of that contract or other matter.
The Government think that this precedent in a measure enacted in a period, indeed, when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was Secretary of State for Scotland, is sound and should be followed. We consider that whether a member of a licensing board should act on an application to which he is a competent objector is a matter which can quite properly be left to the member himself to decide, particularly in view of the protection afforded to an applicant by the provisions in Clause 18 for the giving of reasons for a board's decision, and in Clauses 17 and 39, which lay down rights of appeal to the sheriff. In these circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, will not feel that he should press his Amendment.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the Bill makes no provision for a man declaring either an interest or an objection; that is to say, if he is a member of the licensing court the licensing court has no obligation to make any statement if conceivably they have either an interest or grounds for objection?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the position under Section 41(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 is that it is entirely up to the member concerned whether or not he declares an interest. Of course, if he declares an interest that is it, but it is for the member himself to determine whether he declares an interest.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, in replying to me, has quoted Section 41(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. I am surprised that he seems to equate an interest in a contract that is going to take place in a neighbourhood or area with the construction or creation of new licensed premises of a permanent nature which may change the character of an area. However, I do not feel it would be proper this afternoon for me to take this matter any further, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Arrangements for discharge of functions of licensing boards]:
4.12 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert—
("(gg)making a decision on an application for Sunday opening under Part I of Schedule (Sunday opening of premises in respect of which a public house licence or refreshment licence is or will be in force and Sunday restriction orders relating to licensed premises)to this Act other than an application under paragraph 13 of that Schedule where no objection is made in relation to the application;
(ggg)making a decision as regards a Sunday restriction order or the revocation of such an order under Part II of Schedule (Sunday opening of premises in respect of which a public house licence or refreshment licence is or will be in force and Sunday restriction orders relating to licensed premises) to this Act;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that it will he for the convenience of your

645
Lordships' House if, in moving Amendment No. 3, I discuss with it Amendments Nos.21 and 42, since these two Amendments are linked with it. It is necessary for me to give the background to these Amendments, and I apologise to those who are familiar with that background and have to listen to it again. The Bill as introduced in the other place did not provide for Sunday opening because in the Government's view it was unwise to take this additional step as well as to make the other changes which were being made with a view to removing restrictions. The First Scottish Standing Committee voted in favour of Sunday opening of public houses on the same basis as hotels and registered clubs. When the Bill reached Report stage in the other place, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland sought to reverse the view of the Scottish Standing Committee. He was unsuccessful in doing so, but as a fallback position my right honourable friend moved Amendments to the Bill, which were accepted without a Division, which created safeguards which involved applications by individual licenceholders to the licensing board before Sunday opening might be possible. This fallback position was removed by the Committee of your Lordships' House during their deliberations, and it is the main purpose of this group of Amendments from the Government's point of view to restore the Sunday safeguards.
Having set the scene in that way, I shall now explain what the Amendments are intended to achieve. The first change made by the Committee was in subsection (2) of Clause 5, where two paragraphs were removed relating to decisions on Sunday opening and the restriction of hours on Sundays. My Amendment No. 3 would put these back, in the case of paragraph (gg) in a slightly amended form. These Amendments are paving Amendments for my Amendment No. 21 to Clause 53, which would seek to reinstate a reference to the new Schedule, and for the new Schedule, which incorporates the Sunday safeguards and is Amendment No. 42.
I now turn to the arguments in favour of the Amendments. When the other place, on Report, agreed to Sunday opening of public houses, there seemed to be general acceptance that some kind of safeguard was necessary. I think it is
646
important to stress that there is concern about this proposed change in Scotland, and many honourable Members in the other place expressed their feelings in that regard. There is concern, certainly, lest the problems associated with drunkenness on Fridays and Saturdays should carry over into Sunday as well. This is a very real problem in Scotland in some of the larger urban areas.
Accordingly, we have devised a test which is contained in the new Schedule. The test is contained in paragraph 7, which allows a licensing board to refuse an application if the use of the premises on a Sunday would cause undue disturbance or public nuisance in the locality. think it is right that Sunday opening should be prevented if, for example, the licensing board thinks that the use on a Sunday of premises which form part of a tenement property in the centre of a large city would cause undue disturbance Or public nuisance. In the Government's view, the local residents would be likely to welcome a day free from disturbance attributable to the opening of a public house there in their midst.
I could of course go into greater detail on the Amendments, but we have rehearsed this argument at some length in Committee. The basic choice, I submit, is clear. Do we have Sunday opening with safeguards, or do we have it without safeguards? I think the issue before your Lordships' House really is as simple as that. I hope the House will agree with me in supporting the safeguards incorporated in these Amendments and in reversing the decision made in your Lordships' Committee, and in that light I would of course wish to submit Amendment No. 3 for your Lordships' consideration. I beg to move.
Lord GUEST: My Lords, the E ill which now reaches your Lordships' House is in the same form as it was when ii left the Standing Committee in another place, and I hope sincerely that the Bill will leave this House in that same form. There is no question about Sunday opening, as such. Nobody suggests that there should not be Sunday opening within suitable hours. What is suggested by the Government is that there should be severe restrictions on the Sunday opening of public houses. The noble Lord has gone back a certain distance in time and has explained very fairly and clearly what has happened, but

647
I feel I must go further back than that. When the Committee of which I had the honour to be chairman sat in 1959, we were under what was known as the "bona fide traveller" law in regard to Sunday drinking. This entitled a traveller to "reasonable refreshment" at any hour of day or of night on a Sunday. No one knew what a "bona fide traveller" was. It was popularly supposed that lie had to travel three miles to the public house, although there was no legal authority for that. Nobody knew what "reasonable refreshment" was, and that depended on the publican himself.
In our Committee we suggested that there should be Sunday opening of public houses. That view was not accepted by the Government of the day, and they made a compromise whereby hotels—that is, hotels with four bedrooms or more—should be allowed to open their bars on a Sunday. This was a most unsatisfactory position, as your Lordships will realise, because in many areas of our country parts of the city are well equipped with hotels and therefore public houses can open on Sundays, whereas other areas are not so well equipped, which means that the wouldbe Sunday drinker has often to travel a considerable distance from his part of the city to an hotel in which he can consume his drink in the bar. It has led to disturbances in places because the bars in the hotel part of the city have been overcrowded. That was the position left by the Government in 1960. It remained, and remains until this day.
What surprises me is that this Government, when they introduced the Bill in another place, did not see fit to do something at any rate to remedy that position. But not at all. When it reached the Scottish Standing Committee it had no provisions regarding Sunday opening. However, good sense prevailed in that Committee and they introduced Sunday opening without strings. But the Government could not leave well alone. When the matter came to Report stage in another place they introduced the restrictions that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, seeks to reintroduce into this Bill.
He has given some description of these restrictions; namely, first, that an applicant for Sunday opening who has a public house licence must apply to the
648
licensing board for a Sunday licence. The noble Lord has not indicated that the licensing board may refuse that licence upon certain grounds which are already covered in the general position; because a person who applies for a licence in the first place must satisfy the board that the opening and use of the premises would not cause undue disturbance or a public nuisance. That is the very same position as he has to take up in regard to Schedule 4, namely, the application for a Sunday licence. I ask myself why it is necessary that the person who wishes to open his premises on a Sunday should have to surmount these two hurdles.
But, my Lords, worse is still to come in regard to Part II of Schedule 4, which the noble Lord has not mentioned. That is the part which entitles the licensing board, on a complaint that the use and opening of the premises on a Sunday has caused a public nuisance or a threat to public safety and order, to put on a Sunday restriction order. This is a severe penalty. It imposes upon either individual premises or upon a group of premises a restriction against Sunday opening for such period as the licensing board may specify in the order. Observe the severity of this penalty! Supposing a disturbance takes place, we will say, outside a bar which is attached to an hotel. The licensing board are within their powers in imposing a Sunday restriction order on all those types of premises in the locality. That seems to me to be quite unnecessary and, moreover, it is unnecessary for this further reason: that under Clause 32 of the Bill the licensing board upon a complaint made in regard to a public house licence, have already the power to suspend that licence; and in regard to that matter, if there is a public nuisance or public disturbance, they may take into account the behaviour in the locality of persons frequenting the premises. Therefore the safeguards are already contained in the Bill so far as premises which open on a weekday are concerned.
It is said by the noble Lord that these are merely fallback and safeguard provisions. I hope that I have shown your Lordships that the safeguards are already contained in the Bill. I have not mentioned so far the fact that the Clayson Committee already recommended Sunday opening,

649
as did our committee. Nor have I mentioned the fact that in England public houses have for many years been open on a Sunday. Why should Scotland be treated differently? I regard these restrictions as unduly restrictive and really an insult to Scotland. Scotland is a proud nation, soon to have an Assembly of its own. Can it not be trusted with the same opening hours on a Sunday as in England? I have said before in this House that Scotland is being, treated like a child who is given a sweet and then is told, "You cannot eat it unless you behave yourself".
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, has, I think, deployed some cogent arguments as to why we should not accept the Amendment and the two associated Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, reminded us that a decision was taken in the Commons Committee in the same sense as the recommendation by the Clayson Committee; that is to say, that public houses should be opened in Scotland on Sundays like restaurants. That was confirmed at the Report stage. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, chaired a distinguished committee on this subject some years ago and is, I believe, an expert and somebody who has interested himself for many years in this subject of licensing laws and the need for reform. As I mentioned earlier, these matters have been discussed in another place on a completely nonParty basis and, so far as the Conservatives were concerned, the votes have been free votes. It produced that result, of Sunday opening, twice in another place.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, told us, the Government then decided to insert this Schedule at the very last moment—the Schedule which they are now attempting to re-insert—in the Commons, at the Report stage. There was very little time for consideration of the restrictions which were contained in it. I think there are two broad objections. First, that the proposed Schedule is much more restrictive than can possibly be necessary, for the reasons which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, has just given us. I would draw attention particularly to these new expressions in Part 2 of the Schedule, the meaning of which is most unclear. For example, what is to be the cause of "undue public
650
Nuisance"? It is going to be difficult for that to be interpreted in the future if it were to be one of the restrictions; and we should be back to the kind of abuses and ambiguities that existed when the bona fide traveller was part of the law, as the noble and learned Lord reminded us. That is the first broad objection.
The second objection is that the Schedule would produce additional bureaucratic exercises which the licensees would have to go through. They would have to go through the hoops of applications for Sunday opening when they had already passed all the tests for being open for the other six days of the week. The tests for the other six days should be demanding enough to make it unnecessary to have a whole lot of additional restrictions for he seventh clay. The bureaucratic exercise of repeating the whole application procedure has not been proved necessary.
My Lords, the majority of this House in Committee were opposed to the Schedule which the Government had produced, and if that view is sustained by this House then it means that the Commons will have another opportunity to consider this matter again and time to reflect upon whether restrictions are needed at all or whether they should be as tight as these. I, myself, feel that this is a matter on which your Lordships should divide if the Government do not themselves withdraw the Amendment at the end of the debate. I, myself, am opposed to this Schedule and I hope that many other noble Lords in different parts of the House will take the same view.
4.30 p.m.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, as I did in Committee I wish now to support the Government on the attitude they a e taking towards a separate licence for Sunday opening. I believe that this time the Government are taking an adult and responsible view and are truly reflecting the general view in the community that Sunday licences should be treated slightly separately from the other days of the week. This is where I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I do not believe that the tests applied to the public houses in Scotland that operate on the other days of tie week pass for Sunday if it is a place that is, a public house or an hotel with a bar) where you wish to take your family.

651
As I mentioned in Committee, unfortunately it is my belief that the standards found inside Scottish public houses are not comparable with the majority of those in England. It would be wrong to compare the two together. The Government are wise and right to make a difference for a Sunday licence. If I understood the Amendment correctly, it allows the publican the choice of not opening on a Sunday if he so wishes. In some country areas it is a considerable strain to work for seven days a week with a small staff or perhaps an elderly family. The Amendment offers the choice for the publican not to apply if he so wishes. I will not take up any more time; my views were expressed in Committee. I hope the House does not divide, but if it does I will support the Government.
4.31 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask a question arising out of what the noble Lord said? As the Bill stands, would an applicant for a licence be obliged to open on a Sunday?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, he would not. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, correctly described the position. An applicant does not have to open on a Sunday. He makes application for a seven-day licence.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has misunderstood. I am asking about the Bill as it now stands, not as in the Amendment. If he makes an application for a licence, does he have to open on a Sunday or can he apply for a licence for the sixdays? Even if he gets a licence, is it open to him to decide whether or not to open on a Sunday?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, if the publican wishes to open on the seventh day, he makes application to the licensing board. The publican need not make that application. If he makes the application, need he then open? I will check that point and let the noble Lord know, if possible, by the end of the debate.
Lord GUEST: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will tell us under what clause, if the Bill stands in its present form, a licence-holder must apply to open on a
652
Sunday. As I understand it, the permitted hours in Clause 53 are the permitted hours on weekdays and permitted hours on Sundays.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I rise only to confirm the support which I gave to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, in Committee. The Bill as it stands, regardless of anything to do with Sundays, contains within it scope for objection, and appeals procedures that could cover anything to do with Sunday opening. In Committee I pointed out that quite a number of people work on Sundays and some fear risk of embarrassment or being made unwelcome on going into a hotel for a drink in working clothes. Perhaps it is not without point to say that in some of the areas where there arc no hotels sonic people cannot afford, or do not have the transport to make the journey to places where they can get a drink on a Sunday. As an ex-working publican—a fact already made known to your Lordships—I speculate on whether Sundays will he entirely popular with those who man the bars.
I believe the answer to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn is that under the Bill as it stands a sixday licence can be applied for in any case even where a hotel licence is sought. I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that I cannot see how putting too many hurdles in the way of Sunday opening for public houses in some of the city areas that he has in mind is likely to improve them. On the contrary, if people who tend to live a somewhat different day on a Sunday, a different pattern, habits of where they eat, and so forth, go to their local public house, they will go better clad and more in a mood for comfort and relaxation. Perhaps they will generate pressure for an improvement in those premises. I reaffirm my support for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, and others on this Amendment.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, and the Bill as it stands. I listened at Committee to what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said. I remain entirely unconvinced. If it is right for the public house to be open

653
from Monday to Saturday and that the behaviour on those days is all right, why does one suppose that it is wrong for a public house to be open on a Sunday? Equally, if people do not behave well on a Saturday or Friday night, you can then equally say that the public houses should not be open because the row on a Friday and Saturday seems to be just as bad as on a Sunday. I do not want rows; the important point is that we should raise the standards throughout our public houses in Scotland.
I know of public houses whose standards are very high, which you could compare perfectly well with the English ones. That is something very important that we ought to do. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, said, it is almost childish to say that people can attend public houses from Monday to Sunday in England but they can attend only from Monday to Saturday in Scotland.
The point which the noble Lord, Lord Gray, made is that there are a lot of people whose jobs entail working on Sundays, and I do not see why they should not have the opportunity to buy a glass of beer in a pub on a Sunday in the same way as they would on a Saturday, Friday, or any other day of the week. We want to raise the standard. We want the public houses to be as good as they possibly can be and serve the public. The public are entitled to be served on a Sunday as well as any other day of the week.
I will not support the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, because a very complicated schedule is produced. That is going to make life extremely difficult and complicated for people who want to get a licence for Sunday opening. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, said, there is no reason why we should not in Scotland have exactly the same privileges and treatment as people in England. If it is thought had at any time, steps can be taken on a weekday or any day to see that if the publican runs the house badly, he suffers as a consequence. That Sunday should be singled out as a separate day in this matter when you have all the safeguards in the Bill for the opening times of public houses, is quite unnecessary. I do not support the proposals put forward by the Government.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, I was the Minister in charge of this Bill, speaking from where the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, is now, when, against the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, we enacted what is at present the law. I am sure that, after some years, we found that he was right; and he is right now in what he recommends. I shall support the noble and learned Lord and I hope that the House will also support him.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, might I put the point to him again, because I do not think he was quite seized of it, and nor I think, if I may say so, was my noble friend Lord Gray. As I understand it, a person may apply for a licence under Clause 10 and may be granted a licence under Clause 9. Under Clause 53 that licence will then cover the permitted I ours for Sundays and for other days. My question is simply this: Is he obliged to open on Sundays if he does not wish to?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I was going to clear up two or three queries that had been put to me, and perhaps I may take them in reverse order. The noble Lord, Lord Guest, asked whether I could tell him where in the Act the suggestion that I made earlier could be found. I would direct him to Clause 54(5). That also covers the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, because it says:
"Nothing in this Act shall be taker to require any premises to be open for the sale or supply of alcoholic liquor during the permitted hours."
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked how one would define "undue public disturbance". I am advised that this would be a matter for the licensing board to interpret in a commonsense way, having regard to all the prevailing circumstances. I would emphasise a point I made earlier; namely, that there is an appeal to the sheriff under Part 1 of the new Schedule and also under Part 2.
I have listened carefully to the contributions made by your Lordships to this debate this afternoon. I said earlier that the issue here is in essence a very simple one. Whatever the Government's original position might have been, their present position is that public houses are going to open on Sundays in Scotland. But if my Amendments continue to be

655
successful, the Government want to see, when we get to No. 42 in paragraph 7 of the Schedule, that
"A licensing board shall refuse an application made under paragraph 2 above if it is satisfied that the opening and use on a Sunday of the premises to which the application relates would cause undue disturbance or public nuisance in the locality"—
and I attempted to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, how we might interpret that—
"but otherwise shall grant the application."
Therefore that is the intention. I think the noble Lord, Lord Guest, agrees that it is a simple decision one way or the other: do the public houses in Scotland open on Sunday without safeguard provisions or should the Government's desire to safeguard the position be sustained by your Lordships' House? I have explained what the safeguards are and how they apply. I would say, further, that the reasoning behind the Government's position is essentially one of concern about increasing alcoholism particularly in the larger urban areas of Scotland. I agree that the problem is nationwide, but it is essentially more difficult, more localised and greater in extent on the Scottish scene. The Government feel that for every public house in every possible locality to be automatically granted a licence to open, would not be in the best interests of the Scottish people at this time. I therefore wish to sustain my Amendment.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—I was endeavouring to get up earlier—I should like to say that I entirely support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, over Sunday opening. I think we should be quite clear that the more we hedge the matter with regulations the more difficult it becomes for the police to enforce the law. It seemed to me that Lord Guest had made it perfectly clear that there already exist in the Bill powers to control the public houses that are opened on Sunday. If you put in additional regulations for Sunday, I think it is possible they will not be properly enforced. It is better to have the straightforward regulations that exist for the rest of the week and then the police, to whom we all owe so much, will know exactly where they stand.
656
I should like to take up one point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that by Sunday opening there will be increasing alcoholism in Scotland. That is dealt with in perhaps the most important and interesting part of the Clayson Report. Dr. Clayson, the chairman of the Committee, is a medical practitioner of very considerable standing, and the report has a whole chapter on the problem of increasing alcoholism in Scotland. He and the Committee came to the conclusion that the more restrictive the laws are regarding the drink question, the more they predipose towards alcoholism—
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me? I apologise for interrupting him but, by leave of the House, I just want to say that at no time did I say that Sunday opening would increase alcoholism in the Scottish scene. I have in fact been endeavouring to point out that if every public house in every part of every locality is permitted to open, then certain public nuisance flows from that and certain weekday difficulties spill over to Sunday. I said that the Government were very concerned about the overall problem of alcoholism in Scotland, but I do not think that I said at any time that the opening of pubs on Sunday in Scotland would necessarily increase the incidence of alcoholism.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I am very sorry indeed if I took up the noble Lord wrongly. I will certainly look closely tomorrow at the report of what he said. I apologise if I have misunderstood him, but that does not put any less emphasis on the report of Dr. Clayson and his committee that, by and large, the fewer restrictions we have and the longer the time when it is possible to obtain alcoholic refreshment, the less drunkenness there will probably be.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, if an English woman may intervene in this Scottish debate, I should like to follow up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, and by the noble Lord who has just spoken. My one visit to Scotland suggested to me that shorter hours caused people to drink more furiously because they had a shorter time in which to do it. I have never seen more dedicated drinkers than in Scottish pubs, whereas, of course, the English have now allowed the intrusion

657
of females into pubs and they take a different attitude. I heard somebody say "Shame!"—but equal opportunities are with us now.
Quite seriously, I should like to ask the Minister whether the controlling regulations to which he refers are similar to those which we should have in relation to the laws in England, because it seems there is no reason at all—and I read the report to which the noble Lord has referred—to suggest that were Scots given the same
opportunities they would behave any differently.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, there is no similarity between the two sets of regulations.
4.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 99.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Foot, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Amherst, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Aylestone, L.

Grey, E.

Shepherd, L.

Banks, L.

Hall, V.

Shinwell, L.

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Simon, V.

Bowden, L.

Henderson, L.

Snow, L.

Brimelow, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stamp, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacobson, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Castle, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Champion, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chorley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Tanlaw, L.

Collison, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wade, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McCarthy, L.

Walston, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller]

Davies of Leek, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

White, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pannell, L.

Wigoder, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Winterbottom, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Phillips, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Munster, E.

Allerton, L.

Gainford, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Northchurch, B.

Amulree, L.

Goschen, V.

Northesk, E.

Arran, E.

Gray, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Auckland, L.

Greenway, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Balerno, L.

Gridley, L.

Platt, L.

Belstead, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Berkeley, B.

Guest, L.

Redesdale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Reigate, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rochdale, V.

Bledisloe, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brock, L.

Hatherton, L.

Sackville, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Henley, L.

St. Just, L.

Carrington, L.

Hives, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cathcart, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandys, L.

Clancarty, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Selkirk, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Ilchester, E.

Spens, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Inchyra, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Craigton, L. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Suffield, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kinross, L.

Teviot, L.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Teynham, L.

Denham, L.

Leathers, V.

Todd, L.

Drumalbyn, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lyell, L.

Vernon, L.

Eccles, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Vickers, B.

Elles, B.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Marley, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Elton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Merrivale, L.

Westbury, L.

Faithfull, B.

Molson, L.

Yarborough, E.

Ferrers, E.

Monck, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.59 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 8, at end insert—
("(ii) making a decision on an application for an occasional permission.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment of a very different calibre from that which we have recently been discussing. I have formed the impression during the passage of the Bill that the Government, or the proposers, have been a little cavalier in dealing with what is called "occasional permission". "Occasional permission" is described in Clause 34, and it amounts to the granting of permission, probably to a voluntary organisation, for an occasional entertainment, a grand affair or something of that kind, and they are allowed to have up to four a year.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, defended the position by reference to such splendid and important organisations as the Red Cross, the National Trust of Scotland, Oxfam, and of course they are highly respectable and admirable organisations. But these are not the only ones which can come under "occasional permission". Any voluntary organisation can come under that provision and they may be much less respectable than the sort of organisations I mentioned. I believe that the Bill as drafted at the present time is a little too easy on this subject, and I shall come back to it again in another Amendment later on. The Amendment I am moving at the moment is that under Clause 5 the licensing board are entitled to delegate their function to one or two of their members and even to their clerk. When you delegate to a clerk it means that you merely walk into the office, fill in a form and get permission. That is too easy a way to deal with what amounts to a licence for a day. It is in fact called a "permission".
The important thing to remember is that these are people who are not licence holders; they have never held a licence and they have not had the experience which is given to licence holders. I do not think that the permission to sell alcohol at a fair or a fete by an organisation should be granted simply by the clerk. This is something which is too serious for that to happen. The board will never see the applicant, they have
660
perhaps never heard of him before and yet under this provision they are giving permission for a "permission" to be given through the clerk.
I believe that this subject should be included among those which ought to be dealt with by the hoard themselves. There are a number here, subjects such as provisional licences, renewal licences, refusal of a grant, suspension of a licence and closure orders, which are matters that cannot be delegated. I am recommending to the Government that an "occasional permission" should not be delegated either. I concede the noble Lord's case that there arc certain highly respectable organisations in which the matter is a pure formality but I do not think it should be allowed to be a formality in every case. It should he included among those lists in Clause 4 which should he referred to and dealt with by the board as such. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, this Amendment would impose on licensing hoards the duty to consider applications for occasional permissions only at full meetings of the board and would prevent them—that is, the boards—from delegating this function to a committee, a member or members or to the board's clerk. Perhaps I should remind the House of the nature of an occasional permission, although I agree that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has himself indicated just the type of permission we have in mind. It is a permission to sell alcoholic liquor granted to a voluntary organisation for a function run by it with the number of grants to each organisation or branch of an organisation limited, as the noble Earl very fairly said, to four per annum in any one licensing area. The Government's intention is that licensing hoards should consider matters of major importance at their quarterly meetings while matters of a routine or transitory nature may be delegated to a committee, a member or members or to the clerk of the board.
This Amendment would remove the flexibility of the present arrangements. It may be that sometimes an application from a voluntary organisation would raise issues of importance which, for example, the clerk of the board, if the function had been delegated to him, would have difficulty in dealing with on his own, but

661
—and I must ask the noble Earl to give consideration to this point—the Government consider that it is reasonable to assume that the clerk in that sort of circumstance would seek advice perhaps from the chairman of the board or from other members about how to proceed.
The Government do not think that applications for occasional permissions are matters of such weight that they should invariably be looked at by the full board. I am therefore unable to accept the noble Earl's Amendment for that reason.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I appreciate the point the noble Lord is making, but I do not think he is correct in saying that if this was inserted into Clause 5 it would require to be examined by the quarterly meeting of the board. The board can be called together at any time. A quorum is three and it is not a difficult organisation to call together at quite a short interval. I suppose the board could delegate the clerk to use his judgment in organisations which were listed as of importance, whereas unknown organisations could be referred back to the hoard or to a committee of the board. Is that within the powers of Clause 5? Can the noble Lord answer that? I want to restrict particularly the functions of the clerk to make decisions on organisations which may not be well known but which may be perfectly respectable or which may not be perfectly respectable.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the boards are to be given power to arrange in the usual common sense way their own administrative arrangement. That is why I have been suggesting to the noble Earl that in the Government's view, so far as the granting of occasional permissions is concerned we consider that in almost all cases the clerk is very likely the person who will receive the application and process it. If there is a difficulty he can certainly get in touch with other members of the board. I have been indicating that.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I shall not press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Consideration of applications]:
5.7 p.m.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 29, at beginning insert ("Where a chief constable has lodged an objection under the provision of section 16(4) of this Act, or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we get to Clause 16 an Amendment concerned with the provision to the Bill which allows for last minute objections by a chief constable will be discussed. I must not anticipate arguments there but I refer to that now because it is because of the provision in the Bill for the last minute objection by a chief constable that I am seeking to insert into Clause page 8, line 29:
"Where a chief constable has lodged an objection under the provision of Section 16(4) of this Act, or".
My Lords, Clause 13 provides for deferral of consideration of any application in certain specified and special circumstances. I submit that it would be appropriate to insert here the Amendment I am proposing in order to avoid unwarranted embarrassment to an applicant where, under the range of competent grounds for a last minute objection which might be made by a chief constable, the objection given time for rebuttal, might be withdrawn or rejected by the board. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord STRABOLGI: I am sure, my Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, for putting down this Amendment and for raising this point. The effect of the Amendment would enable the licensing board to postpone to an adjourned meeting consideratior of an application for a licence which was subject to a late objection by a chief constable.
If I may remind your Lordships, Clause 13 which deals with the consideration of applications, provides that a licensing, board may postpone to an adjourned meeting consideration of an application for a licence, in relation to which the applicant or objector has through inadvertence or misadventure failed to comply with the preliminary requirements of the Bill or, having duly lodged his application or objection, has, say, died before the meeting of the board. The Amendment would add to these circumstances justifying adjournment an application in respect of

663
which a chief constable had lodged a late objection under Clause 16(4). I assume that the aim of the Amendment is to enable the board and the applicant to whom it may not have been practicable for the chief constable to give notification of his objection before the hearing, to consider the objection.
The proposed addition of a late objection by a chief constable does not, in our view, fit easily into a subsection on unintentional failure to complete preliminary requirements, and the intervention of death in Clause 13. But we think this is an important point. We can see the merit in the spirit of the Amendment, if I may so describe it, if it is regarded as a possible alternative to Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, which will be coming before the House shortly. Therefore, I suggest respectfully to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, that we take on board the point he has made. Perhaps he would withdraw his Amendment No. 5 on the basis that we will consider it further in the light of the decision taken by your Lordships on Amendment No. 7.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for that answer. I am happy to fall in with the course that he proposes. But in Clause 13 we find the words, "may, if it thinks fit"—in other words, that it would be still at discretion. My point in putting it into this particular position was that this seemed a suitable clause. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 6 I should point out to your Lordships that this Amendment should appear under the heading of Clause 16 an not Clause 13.
Clause 16 [Objections in relation to applications]:
5.24 p.m.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 9, line 30, after second ("grant") insert ("renewal").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is really only a drafting Amendment.
664
Throughout a series of clauses, namely, Clauses 13, 14, 15 and 16, references are made at frequent intervals to the different types of licences that may be applied for.
In the definition clause to the Bill, Clause 138, there is a definition of "grant" and I shall read it:
"'Grant', in relation to a licence, includes a grant by way of renewal, and 'granting' and 'application' shall be construed accordingly".
Quite appropriately, the word "grant" appears by itself. It appears on several occasions in Clause 13, at line 29, and at line 43 on page 8. But when it recurs on page 9 in Clause 16, we are here spelling out the variety of licence applications in relation to which objections can be made. We are dealing with the competent objectors. I feel the drafting might have followed the system used elsewhere. I find it on page 12 at the beginning of Clause 19 which deals with canvassing, where "grant" and "renewal" are actually spelt out in the way I suggest. I beg to move.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we believe that the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is an improvement to the drafting. We are very grateful to him for putting it down, and we are very happy to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 10, line 37, leave out ("where practicable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7 to Clause 16 where I propose that the words "where practicable" should be omitted. This is returning to what we thought was an important point when we were considering this matter in Committee. As the Bill at present is drafted, chief constables, like other objectors, are expected to give seven days' notice of the objections which they are to raise concerning an application for a licence. But subsection (4) says:
"Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions in this section …"
It then goes on to enable a chief constable to lodge an objection without giving any notice at all.
My Lords, I am quite ready for chief constables to be able to give late notice and to be in a special position, because I realise that once an application has been lodged, they need some time and they may find some reason for objecting. But it seemed to be going too far to put the words "where practicable" in the Bill in such a way that a chief constable need not give any notice at all of lodging an objection before a hearing. It would mean an applicant would have no idea that there would be an objection until he arrived at the hearing and, therefore, would be unable to prepare himself.
When we were discussing this on Committee, I had another Amendment on the Marshalled List which we discussed with this one. That Amendment was that the chief constable should give at least 24 hours' notice. My point there was that there would be a difference of between one and seven days, which would give the chief constable six days' advantage over any other objectors. Now, I am simply seeking to take out the words "where practicable".
My Lords, at the end of our debate on Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was good enough to say that the Government would undertake to look more closely at this clause in the light of the discussion in the Committee. I believe, and I know a number of my noble friends also believe, that some notice should be given, however short it is, and however much less it is than the seven days for other objectors. I believe some notice should be given of the objections to be raised by a chief constable. The applicant would then have a fair opportunity before a hearing to know what the objection was going to be, and, indeed, that there was going to be an objection at all.
If the Amendment which I am moving were accepted, chief constables would still be in a special position. In certain circumstances they would be able to give notice at the very last moment, very late notice, but they would be obliged to give notice. That is the really important point. Chief constables whom I have known in Scotland have always wished to be scrupulously fair in their dealings with all members of the public. I believe it is important for the good relations which we all hope for between the police and the public, that the police should not be
666
given what is really an unnecessary advantage in having the kind of special power which this clause as it stands at present, would provide.
I hope that the Government, if they have not already considered this very carefully and thought of making a change, will still consider at this stag, whether they ought not to make a charge to this clause. We could always find borne time for a change on Third Reading, if we can convince the Government about this aspect. We regard this as an important point. I hope we can put the chief constables in a special position, but not to the extent that they need not give any notice at all concerning an objection to an application.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in what he has said. If the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, thinks back to our Committee stage, he will recall that on a number of points I was conceived that there was, through the liberalising of certain procedures, a danger of less communication, if I may put it that way, between courts and applicants in the future on such matters where they are excused attendance where there is an applicant for a permanent transfer. He will remember that I attempted to make some changes but was not successful in that Cirection. I think the case that has been made is sound, and I hope that the Government will be able to respond to it. Before anyone runs away with the idea that I am against chief constables, I might say that I was saved at my first application before a licensing court by the superintendent who was attending there in his behalf, who very neatly and swiftly dealt with a point of possible difficulty to me, which was raised by a member of the licensing court.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I indicated at Committee that we would give further consideration to points raised, and I have listened to the contributions made again in the debate this afternoon. I accept that it is important that the principle of giving an applicant some notice, however short, of an objection by the chief constable should not be breached, and in the light of that consideration I will accept the Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I must, before the Question is put, express gratification and applaud what the noble Lord has done. I think this was something which was going to cause considerable anxiety in Scotland. I should personally like to thank the noble Lord; he did say that he would consider this, and he clearly has been able to see the point of view which we tried to express. I am grateful to him for having taken all this trouble; I recognise he must have done so in order to get this change accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Grounds for refusal of application.]:
5.22 p.m.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 11, line 43 leave out ("paragraph (a)") and insert ("paragraphs (a) to (c)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8. We are here in Clause 17. We are dealing with grounds for refusal of applications before the licensing board. At our Committee stage I raised points on this, and I gave certain examples that could give rise to conflict and confusion. I am not returning to my Committee points today; it is a somewhat different issue that I wish to raise. At the foot of the page there are set out types of application and against them the competent grounds on which a competent objector may object. In regard to the permanent transfer of a licence, noble Lords will discover that the only competent ground is the one given under Clause 17(1)(a); namely,
"that the applicant, or the person on whose behalf or for whose benefit the applicant will manage the premises … is not a fit and proper person to be the holder of a licence.
I can see that that alone would be the only proper ground for rejecting an applicant. But we have a situation that could arise, and I would ask the noble Lord for his view.
Under the provisions as they are written, if an incumbent licenceholder was afeared of an objection under other competent grounds when he was going forward for renewal, he could anticipate and avoid the consequences of a renewal refusal by seeking out someone to whom he might permanently transfer the licence. I think
668
this might be particularly germane to the case of the joint application, the case where you have an employer and an employee both named in an application. I believe I am right in saying that it would be quite possible for the principal of the joint licence to change the employee; in other words, instal another employee on the premises and join his name to the licence in order to avoid the consequence to which I have pointed. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, this Amendment is identical to one which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, in Committee. In replying to the noble Lord then, I made the point that where a permanent transfer is under consideration the only issue that the hoard need concern itself with is the suitability of the applicant. Of course, the noble Lord has just been making that point, and I confirm that this is already provided for in the clause as it stands. I think we are in agreement about that. I understand that the noble Lord's concern is that someone who feared refusal of renewal of a licence on the grounds of (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of the clause could circumvent this by arranging for a permanent transfer. I hope that I can allay these fears by pointing to the provisions of Clause 30(3). A licence has effect for three years after the meeting at which it is granted. This lifetime is not extended by a permanent transfer. It is the licence then subsisting which is transferred under Clause 25(1).
Thus if someone thought that he was likely to fail to have his licence renewed because the premises were unsatisfactory he could not avoid the consideration of his premises by the device of a transfer. The licence, even if permanently transferred, would still fall to be renewed at the same time as if it had not been transferred. I hope that this explanation relieves the anxieties of the noble Lord. I should also make the point that competent objections may be made to an application for permanent transfer under Clause 16. It would follow, therefore, that someone who sought to frustrate the likely refusal of a licence would find application for permanent transfer subject to possible objections, to a full hearing by the board and to the possibility of appeals to the sheriff by competent objectors in the event of the application being granted.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that answer. May I put one point to him. Unless I am not following him closely enough, I would have thought that the device I suggested could be used at the moment when the licence was due for renewal, permanent transfer being applied for on that day. As things are at the moment, you can transfer a licence from one party to another at one of the halfyearly courts. I would have thought that possibility does exist. However, in view of the other things the noble Lord has said, and if he would perhaps say that he might have a close look at the point I have raised, I would propose to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I agree that the point the noble Lord raises is essentially somewhat complicated. I will study his remarks. I would emphasise that I am advised that the licence, even if permanently transferred, would still fall to be renewed at the same time as if it had not been transferred. I am really saying that there is a renewal each three years, in whatever form.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. There is obviously no point in continuing with such a detailed discussion today. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 12, line 8, after second ("or") insert ("permanent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, raised in Committee the question whether the word "transfer" as used in Clause 17(4) might lead to doubt as to whether a temporary or a permanent transfer, or both, was intended. We have considered the point that the noble Lord raised and have tabled this Amendment to make clear that the type of transfer referred to here is a permanent transfer. We are indebted to the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I think all that is necessary is to thank the noble Lord very much for having taken on board this point, and having returned with this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Canvassing]:
5.32 p.m.
Lord GUEST Lord GUEST moved manuscript Amendment No. 9A:
Page 12, line 42, at end insert—
("(1A) If any competent objector within the meaning of section 16(1) of this. Act to the grant (including the provisional grant) or provisional transfer of a licence either by himself or by another person at the instigation of the objector attempts to influence a member of a licensing board to support his objection at any time before its consideration by the board he shall be guilty of an offence.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. The purpose of this Amendment, which I regret is only a manuscript Amendment due to my late arrival this morning, is to equiparate the objector with an applicant in regard to canvassing. Under the Bill as it stands canvassing by an applicant is made a criminal offence, and canvassing means attempting to influence a member of a licensing board before the consideration of the application. I see no reason in principle why an objector should not be under the same penalty. Canvassing, whether it be by an applicant or an objector, is equally objectionable and it strikes at the very root of justice. A licensing court, as has been said, is really judicial in its function and it would be contempt of court for either the pursuer or defender to attempt to influence either a judge or jury in the decision of the… matter. Therefore, I beg to move this Amendment, which seems to me to be fair to both the objector and the applicant.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I raised this matter at tie Committee stage because, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, it seemed very onesided that it should be a new criminal offence for an application: to try to influence a member of a licensing board—and I do not argue with. that—without a similar provision which would cause it to be an offence for objectors to try to influence members of the hoard. It seemed very onesided. I pointed out that an objector could also be another licensee. An objector could well be somebody who had licensed premises in the area and who was in the same kind of

671
business as the applicant for licensed premises, and either objectors or applicants could be financially involved whether an application was successful or not successful.
Then I also—and I only repeat this briefly for the benefit of noble Lords who were not on the Committee or did not read the records of the Committee—pointed out during that discussion that objectors for the purpose of this clause are recognised under this Bill. They are identified, and enter a certain category. It would only be the recognised objectors for a certain application who would be, for that period, under a ban for trying to influence the local licensing board.
I also pointed out that it would help to reduce the numbers of objectors in some cases to those that were reasonable if there was this ban, because the people who only had a tenuous connection would not perhaps think it worth trying to become official objectors if it also meant that they were then subject to a limitation where approaching councillors was concerned, since under the composition of the licensing boards in this Bill the boards are to consist wholly of councillors, and of course we must recognise that this offence could well mean that an applicant was unable to approach his own councillor. But I entirely accept that. I think that to stop canvassing, as it is called in the rubric, is itself right. But I am simply worried, like the noble and learned Lord, that it should be onesided. I had hoped that the Government might themselves have brought forward an Amendment by Report stage on this, but I am glad that the noble and learned Lord has put down an Amendment on this today and given us a further opportunity to hear what the Government have to say about their consideration of the point.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I make just two points. The earlier point I made was on the difference of distinguishing between the board and the district council. There is here a very clear distinction; that is to say, you may approach a district council and say, "I want a road", or you want this or the other thing, but this is a board you may not approach in any circumstance at all. That is the first thing. It adds that distinction, which I believe is important.
672
In the second place, I believe it gives standing to the board. The board is not supposed, as a judicial committee or bench, to discuss its affairs outside the court. This licensing board would not be expected to do so. I believe that for both these reasons this could play a very important part in the very standing of the boards which we are examining today.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, Clause 19 creates a new offence of canvassing by an applicant for the grant, renewal or permanent transfer of a licence or a regular extension of permitted hours, or by another person at his instigation. The Amendments would make canvassing by, or at the instigation of, an objector an offence. The question for the House is whether attempts by objectors to influence members of licensing boards to refuse an application for a licence are sufficiently commonplace to be taken note of in the Bill and, if so, whether they should also be made an offence.
The Committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, in their Second Report, recommended that canvassing by, or on behalf of, applicants or objectors should be made an offence. The Government have, however, distinguished canvassing by applicants as the area which should become a statutory offence. The temptation to canvass is clearly much greater for an applicant than for an objector, even if he is a licence holder. The financial stake of the applicant is obvious.
The real mischief at which the clause should aim, again to quote the noble and learned Lord's Committee's Second Report, at paragraph 82, is,
"The danger that canvassing may lead insidiously to more serious forms of corruption such as bribery."
This is a difficult area, but I do not think that we could reasonably take the view that we have to concern ourselves equally over the possible activities of applicants and objectors. There is some substance in the points that have been made at different times about canvassing by objectors who are licence holders and I have some sympathy with them, but on balance I think it would be wrong to single out canvassing by one type of objector; that is, a neighbouring licence-holder. If a neighbouring licence-holder canvasses, as an objector, a member of the licensing board,

673
he runs the risk of having his actions taken into account by the board in deciding under Clause 17 whether he is a fit and proper person to have his licence renewed.
There are some small points about the Amendment which I should perhaps mention, although I in no way rest my case on them. For example, subsection (1)(a) as set out in the Amendment refers to a "provisional transfer" which is not a term used in the Bill. It omits the renewal and regular extension of permitted hours, which are included in subsection (1) of the clause. I mention that merely for the record but I rest my case on the balance of my remarks.
Lord GUEST: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the reasons for the clause. I am not wholly convinced, but in the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Special provisions relating to applications for renewal of a licence]:
5.42 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 15, line 7, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to leave out of Clause 24(1) under which an application for the renewal of a licence requires that a certificate be produced, such certificate stating that the premises meet various requirements of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956. I submit that this is not necessary—that an extra bureaucratic exercise has been put in here—because under that Act the Secretary of State already has full powers to make whatever regulations he wishes to ensure that conditions are correct as regards cleanliness and everything to do with food. Having discussed the matter in Committee, my impression is that the provision is not necessary and that it will simply cause unnecessary extra work. For that reason I hope that in the meantime the Government have been able to reconsider their attitude.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, we agreed in Committee to consider removal of subsection (1) with its requirement
674
on the applicant for renewal of a licence to produce a food hygiene certificate from the local authority. For the reason that the local authority's public health officers will be exercising a continuing supervision over licensed premises, as of course over other food premises, under the food and drugs legislation. I agree with the noble Lord that the subsection is redundant. I am, therefore, happy to accept his Amendment as a means of simplifying the renewal procedure and I am grateful to the noble Lord for having tabled it.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for having looked at the matter again, for agreeing that the matter is already covered and that there is no need for this extra work which would have been involved in preparing applications. I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 15, line 18, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I suppose it would be too much to expect that I shall have success with this Amendment, too, my Lords. The Government have accepted a few of our Amendments on the Bill today, so we are having more success than has been the case with so many other Bills recently. This Amendment also has the aim of trying to cut out unnecessary work in preparing applications. Subsection (3), which the Amendment seeks to delete, requires that a plan of the premises should be attached to an application. As the plans of licensed premises have to be approved when a licence is originally granted and as permission must be sought for any substantial alteration subsequently, which would mean alterations to the plans being submitted, the licensing board would have available to it at any time the plans, amended on any material point, and should not therefore require a further plan to be put forward when an application for renewal I asked for. I hope therefore that the Government can accept this Amendment on the basis on which they accepted the last one.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords as I said in Committee, the proposed deletion

675
of Clause 24(3), with its power for the licensing board to require a plan of the premises, may seem no more than removal of a minor technicality. But this is a power the use of which could in some circumstances greatly facilitate the consideration of an application for renewal of a licence by the board. It was argued in Committee that the local authority planning department would have the plans of licensed premises—this point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood—and ought to be able to produce them to the licensing board required. This may be so in some cases and where a plan is available in this way the board might well be perfectly content to see the copy held by the local authority. Speaking personally, I have certain reservation about that proposition.
The provision is in the nature of a reserve power. In practice, the bulk of renewal applications will be granted automatically, but as the power to call for a plan is one which a board could use to the advantage of an applicant—for example, to clear up quickly any doubt by the board as to the continued suitability of the premises—I hope that the Amendment will not he pressed. Perhaps the point I should stress is that subsection (3) does not mean that every applicant for renewal will have to produce a plan. I expect that the power will be used infrequently; if we remove it, however, a useful reserve power will be lost from the Bill and I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, what the noble Lord said has been helpful and I would suggest to him, with respect, that if local licensing hoards, when they are established, do not carry out the process he described and are continually asking for plans with renewal applications when they do not really need them, the Scottish Office will, by circular or in some other way, give guidance as to the way in which they should be operating in this respect. Our concern is to try to cut out unnecessary paper work. What the noble Lord said does not entirely meet my point because the removal of the provision would have removed this unnecessary work. However, he has gone a long way by indicating that he would not expect a plan to have to be submitted
676
with every application and that indeed it would be the exception; that only in certain circumstances would a plan be required. That being the case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Grant of provisional licence]:
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 18, line 7, at end insert ("and during the period of reconstruction such provisional licence shall be confirmed by renewal at successive quarterly meetings of the Board or such other intervals as the board may determine.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 27, to which this Amendment is directed, is delightfully brief. Not so, I regret, my Amendment, but I hope that my speech upon it can be short. The point is as follows: the clause is sensible and practical but, like many such provisions, I believe that it is open to potential abuse or, through misadventure, could give rise to undesirable consequences. In one set of circumstances—and perhaps I am being too suspicious here—recon-struction could be mischievously delayed. In another, circumstances could arise during a period of reconstruction of licensed premises where the authorities responsible for safety and so on in such premises could become alarmed.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, advised me several times in Committee not to add to the administrative burden that attaches itself to licensing board staffs. I suggest that, if we provide here for regular review of the grant of a provisional licence to cover the construction of licensed premises, we shall be doing a wise thing. My Amendment specifically suggests that a provisional grant of this type should be confirmed by renewal at successive quarterly meetings of the board or at such other intervals as the board may determine. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, clause 27, as drafted, is essentially a reenactment of Section 55 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1959 and I must tell the noble Lord that we are not aware of any difficulty caused to licensing authorities by the terms of the current provision. In the light of the policy underlying Clause 5 of limiting the items of business for the full licensing board to the

677
major decisions, I do not think a scrutiny of provisional licences is an appropriate item for the attention of the full board at such meetings. I am sure that the noble Lord's intention in tabling this Amendment was and is to ensure that licensing boards look at provisional licences at regular intervals, but I believe that this is a matter that can safely be left to the board itself to arrange. I think that the board can arrange its own check, in effect.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to provisional licences. Surely this is a particular type of provisional licence which is granted only to cover the reconstruction of licensed premises. I am surprised to hear him say that it would attract anything which covers any other form of provisional grant of licences.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, of course a period of construction is a period of fact. It certainly covers that facet, but it also covers the facet to which I pointed.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said and of the fact that he has indicated that he has no information as to difficulties having arisen in the past, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Suspension of licence on receipt of complaint]:
5.55 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 19, line 37, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) any habitual disorderly conduct on the part of persons whilst on those premises or the policies thereof.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Amendment, I believe that it may be for the covenience of the House if Amendments Nos.14 and 15 are also discussed. Amendment No. 14 stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Gray and Amendment No. 15 is a Government Amendment, but all three are on the same point. Mine simply happens to come first.
The background to the Amendments is that, under the Bill as now drafted, the owner of a licence could find that he was being adversely affected because of misbehaviour
678
by people in the al ea of his licensed premises but not on land for which he was responsible. Those persons could well have been drinking at some other public house and might not be connected with his own public house but simply be in the neighbourhood.
I should like to start by taking up a general point made earlier this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord KirkLill, when he said that drunkenness was unfortunately a problem that was greater in Scotland than south of the Border. This was mentioned in Committee and there is no doubt that in certain areas and in certain conditions in Scotland we have a problem of drunkenness which recent surveys have shown is greater than in England and Wales.
It has always been my view that the present Bill and the reform of the licensing laws in Scotland must have as their prime purpose a reduction of drunkenness in Scotland. The arguments and differences of opinion have been about the best way of doing that and at the same time protecting the normal fabric of life. When I set up the Clayson Committee and appointed its members, I announced publicly that I regarded it as the first and most important point that drunkenness should if possible be reduced. One of the interesting points about the Clayson Committee's recommendations when submitted was that the Committee have found that the large majority of drunkenness in Scotland was not based on liquor bought at licensed premises. We have to bar that in mind. The problem is one that goes well beyond the purchase of liquor in licensed premises.
Secondly—and this was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Balerno earlier this afternoon—the Clayson Committee said that some relaxation in permitted hours and other licensing restrictions would have a beneficial effect in reducing drunkenness because there would not be the incentive to try to drink as much as possible in what appeared to be a short time.
I now come to this point which is in the same area. It is the question of a disturbance where the licensee find; himself in an adverse position under the Bill even though the persons who are misbehaving have not been on his premises,

679
have not had a drink in his public house and are not even on his premises or in his car park or anywhere else for which he is responsible. I would point out to noble Lords who are not familiar with expressions north of the Border that the word "policies" here is a Scottish term meaning the area of ground belonging to a person or a body. The Government undertook to look at this and in their Amendment No. 15 have come some way towards us. I welcome that.
However, my Amendment would go further because it would mean that a licensee was less vulnerable to damage caused by people who had not been on his premises and who were misbehaving in an area for which he was not responsible. In other words, they were just in the neighbourhood of his public house. They could even have been on a pub crawl and been to five or six licensed premises and still not been to his and had no intention of going to his, but if they were guilty of misconduct in the terms of the Bill as it is at the moment, "in the vicinity of the licensed premises", he is bound to suffer. There are three attempts at redrafting.
My noble friend Lord Gray has tried to help the Government with his draft, and I am glad to see the Government Amendment. I will accept that but I would hope that the Government would go further. Perhaps they may still change their minds and accept Amendment No. 13.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Maybray-King): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has pointed out that this Amendment and the next two are linked and the two are mutually exclusive. Your Lordships might reasonably discuss the three together.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I shall certainly follow the course that has been suggested. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has told your Lordships, we had a fairly lengthy debate on this matter in Committee. He has well outlined the case that there should be an alteration to the provision as it stands in the Bill. Certainly I would single out the risk of the deliberate and malevolently motivated act against the licensee (as I put it in Committee) on the part of
680
persons against whom he has exercised the right to refuse to serve for some reason, or again as I said, consequential on the ejection of a customer from the premises. It could arise from the behaviour where someone had left without challenging the refusal to be served more drinks on the grounds that he had had enough. I do not think I need enlarge further on the argument advanced by my noble friend.
The word "habitual" which is my sole contribution to this series of Amendments is used because of my concern, which I expressed at the Committee stage, that it would be inappropriate should one occurrence bring down upon the licensee the penalty of suspension of his licence. I shall look forward with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has to say when he conies to speak to this, and my hope is that the mantle of acceptance which he has recently assumed will extend to my word "habitual".
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has put down an Amendment on these lines. As we are discussing, as it were, three variations of what will in the end, I hope, come to the same conclusion, I would say that I think the point which my noble friend Lord Campbell has made is an important one. One wants to safeguard to some extent the unfortunate publican outside whose premises disorder takes place by persons who have probably not been inside his public house. Therefore, I think the words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy,
"whilst on those premises or the policies thereof";
are the ones I like best. These mean that the disorder outside need not involve the publican beyond the fact that it was on his policies. He would not be liable to have his licence taken away and would have a better opportunity of calling in the police or taking the matter to court afterwards. Of the three I would prefer the words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. On the other hand, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has put down an Amendment and I would not be opposed to this.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in order to enable us to make up our minds between the three suggestions, I wonder

681
whether the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, when replying in the course of this debate, would say why it is that the words at present appearing in the Bill,
"misconduct occurring in the vicinity of the licensed premises on the part of persons frequenting those premises"
have been changed to,
"misconduct in the immediate vicinity of licensed premises"—
and the words I wish to query—
"which is attributable to …".
Obviously there must be a difference or the words would not have been changed. Perhaps he would explain the difference and the advantages of the change.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, if I may initially respond to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I do not think I can with clarity define and make a distinction between the two sets of words. In Committee I was sensitive to a measure of disquiet expressed by a number of noble Lords. I consulted with draftsmen and the outcome is the new form which I am advised is, legally speaking, an improvement. It was in an attempt to go some way to meet what appeared to be a measure of disquiet that I offered instructions for a re-think. The product of that re-think is before your Lordships and I do not think I can add anything further.
The noble Lords, Lord Gray and Lord Campbell of Croy, put down for Committee the Amendment now tabled in their names as Amendment No. 13, and kindly agreed to withdraw it to enable the Government to look again at Clause 31. My Amendment No. 15 is designed to meet the point made by the noble Lords in Committee and embodied in the Amendment No. 13 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that a licensing board should be able to take account of any misconduct occurring on the licensed premises, and also the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, that the drafting of subsection (3) needed to be made more specific. I am advised that it meets both points and I hope it will be accepted.
The effect of Amendment No. 13 is to exclude from the licensing board's consideration misconduct that did not occur in the licensed premises (presumably in case it did not relate to these premises) and to limit that consideration to misconduct
682
in the premises or their policies. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has already explained to those of your Lordships who are not of Scottish antecedents the meaning of the word "policies" in this context. I hope the House will agree that in considering a complaint it is right for a licensing board to be able to have regard to misconduct occurring in the vicinity of the premises on the part of persons frequenting the premises. There could be a link between the two. The provisions of the clause must be read as a whole; the licensing board would be interested in misconduct in the vicinity of the premises only in so far as it had any bearing on the question of whether the licence should be suspended. Misconduct which clearly did not arise from the operations of the licensed premises would hardly he relevant. The added safeguard for the licenceholder in all this lies not only in the provision for his being heard by the board but also in his right of appeal to the sheriff against a decision to suspend his licence including any period of suspension imposed.
The Amendment moved by noble Lord, Lord Gray, would make a change in what is contained in the Bill now. My Amendment, No. 15, makes a major change in the wording of the subsection, and should rather make my more comprehensive Amendment than make an adjustment to the present wording, as envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Gray. In view of the importance of enabling the licensing board to take all relevant matters into account, I hope that Amendments Nos 13 and 14 will be withdrawn and that your Lordships will show that commendable good will which we have been showing on this side of the House this afternoon and accept my Amendment No. 15.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I must in fairness say that I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has got the best Amendment here, and I say so for two reasons. First, it quite clearly associates misconduct with the premises. Secondly, I doubt very much whether the word "policies" can possibly include the middle of the road, where in point of fact things happen, and it cannot I think strictly be included in that word, whereas there may be difficulty in proving attribution, but that is a matter of proof. I must admit that in terms of a description of what we

683
are trying to achieve, I think the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has the best version.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, if I may with the leave of the House speak again, I should like to put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. Did I hear him say that my Amendment would put the word "habitual" into the existing—
Lord KIRKHILL: I am so sorry, but I did not hear the noble Lord.
Lord GRAY: Did I hear the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, aright in that I thought he was saying that my Amendment to insert the word "habitual" would insert that word into the existing wording of the Bill? I am advised that it would insert the word "habitual" into the noble Lord's Amendment.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend on this matter. After all, on New Year's Day in Scotland there is much misconduct on licensed premises, but it is not habitual. Therefore it would be far more fair if the noble Lord could insert the word "habitual" before "misconduct" in Amendment No. 15. I think that that would be far more fair.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, if I said what he said I said, then I did not mean to say it, and I would fully accept his gentle remonstrance. I am unable as at presently advised to accept the word "habitual".
Lord GUEST: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has taken note of the proceedings in Committee, and I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I think that Amendment No. 15 is the most satisfactory of the three and will prove an adequate safeguard to the licence-holder.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I have been reinforced not only by my noble friend Lord Selkirk with his legal knowledge, but also by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, when I commended the Government's Amendment as being acceptable. Again I am grateful to the Government for having considered
684
this point between the Committee stage and this stage and for having put down an Amendment. In the light of what has been said I now beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 13.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 19, line 37, leave out from ("misconduct") to end of line 39 and insert ("on the part of persons frequenting licensed premises occurring in those premises or any misconduct in the immediate vicinity of licensed premises which is attributable to persons frequenting those I premises.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Occasional licence for premises' other than licensed premises or clubs]:
6.14 p.m.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 22, line 34, at end insert—
("Provided that it shall be a condition of an occasional licence granted to the holder of an off-sale licence for the purposes of this section that the holder is engaged in the business of providing meals and refreshments and other catering services at events taking place outwith his licensed premises.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16. Once again we are here dealing with a matter which was discussed in Committee, where together with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy I proposed an Amendment. The Amendment I propose today is new. It is not of my own drafting, since I could never put so many words together in the right order. Perhaps for the benefit of noble Lords I should refer to the present situation in Scotland, since to appreciate what I am talking about here an understanding of this is necessary. At present the situation is as follows. An occasional licence, which is what we are dealing with here—or as we know it at the moment in Scotland, a special permission—can be granted to a licensee to enable him to cater for a drinks requirement at a function or an event outwith permitted hours, but only if the event or the occasion is sponsored by a third party, and a certificate, signed by the originator or instigator of the function forms a part

685
of the application, as does an undertaking signed by the licensee to the effect that he himself did not originate it.
The Bill before us today does not reenact that requirement for a third party's sponsorship. The removal of that provision is, I think, desirable and, together with certain other instances of relaxation in regard to occasional licences, as they are now to be known, I think that they constitute a considerable liberalising step forward in Scottish licensing law. However, here I come to my difficulty. My Amendment is directed at functions taking place outwith licensed premises. For preference I should like the operation of such licences left to full licensees, but I concede that there will be functions where the service of a main meal is the prime objective. At the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, reminded me that there is a recommendation in the Clayson Committee Report, at paragraph 9.77, but it was a recommendation tied to the provision of food. The use of the word "food" was interesting because elsewhere it is usually a question of drink being supplied ancillary to the provision of a meal.
I have conceded that occasions calling for main meal provisions would arise, calling for a restaurant licenceholder or a hotel licenceholder. However, when we get to the end of the clause we find that with—out any reference to food or anything else an offsales certificate holder can be granted a licence to provide a bar at a function or an occasion outwith his premises—at a village hall or a community hall, or at a dance which may be going on late into the night or early into the morning.
As I said at the Committee stage, I find this a very surprising proposal. We have in prospect functions continuing into the wee small hours, and they are the kind of functions which in my experience, limited as it may have been, call, because of the physical conditions and the atmosphere which tend to prevail, for all the expertise of the man who is, day by day, serving drinks across a bar and who is used to assuming all the responsibilities that attach to the holder of a full public house or hotel licence—expertise which I would suggest cannot be said to belong to an offsales licence-holder merely because he has such an offsales licence.
My Amendment, which I tabled today, is designed to ensure that a licence to cater at an outside function with a requirement for a bar and the service of alcohol to the people patronising that function shall be granted oily to an offsales licence holder who is,
"engaged in the business of providing meals and refreshments and other catering services at events taking place outwith his licensed premises."
I think this will cover the concerns, perhaps some of them very large, which cater for functions and which include a bar in the facilities they offer, which are staffed in an appropriate way and which are able to deal with the type of thing I am talking about. My Amendment would exclude such persons as a cutprice liquor store or a licensed grocer from being able to come forward in my view quite unsuitably, for such an occasional licence to provide a bar at a function outwith his licensed premises. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I must readily admit that there is frankly a difference of opinion between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Gray, at this point. I cannot really develop an argument to greater purpose than in our earlier discussions in Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has fairly said, I there drew his attention to Clayson at paragraph 9.77, where the recommendation is to allow the holder of an off-sales licence to provide alcoholic liquor at a function for which he is catering.
I presume that the purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that a high standard of service is provided at functions held outwith licensed premises by restricting that service to experienced suppliers. It is the Government's view, like the Clayson Committee's, that it is reasonable to make a general provision that an offsale licence holder should be able to obtain an occasional licence. It is at that. to point that the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Gray, diverge, and I cannot offer him the hope that I can come to meet with him somewhere at a halfway point. The Government believe that the provisions of the Bill as applied to grant of an occasional licence by subsection (6) of Clause 33 will enable a licensing board to exercise sufficient control over the sale of liquor under such a licence. The

687
board, my Lords, may attach conditions to the licence to ensure that the service provided is of a high standard. On behalf of the Government, I am not able to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I suppose I must say that I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, although in view of his recent acceptances of points from this side I had hoped that we might have got some way tonight towards the situation at which I should like to see us arrive. I am not trying to split hairs with the noble Lord, but when he was quoting the report of Dr. Clayson's Committee he said, "a function at which he was catering". I made a specific point of saying, "for which he was providing the food". There is, I believe, a difference, and surely the House can understand what I am trying to say when I point out that, despite the discretion enjoyed by the licensing board, we are here talking about grants of occasional licences which can be made under delegated powers of the board and where, according to the Bill as it is written, persons quite unsuited could come forward—and I believe that on occasion the consequences could be disastrous.
Lord KIRKHILL: Yes, my Lords, but the noble Lord, Lord Gray, would accept that it is not unreasonable to allow the offsale licensee to be granted a licence on the occasion when he is catering. That seems reasonable to me.
Lord GRAY: I entirely agree, and I should have thought that that was in fact covered by my Amendment specifically, and was already in the clause. Without actually looking at my Bill, I can recall that it is covered in regard to the holders of a restaurant and other forms of (I think it is) restricted hotel certificates. If the noble Lord is saying that it is his view and the view of the Government that it would be perfectly proper for an offsales licence holder who is catering at a function to provide a bar at that function, I am in full agreement with him. What I am saying to the noble Lord and to the Government, and what I am trying to ask the House to accept, is that where there is no catering being carried out in terms of food or refreshments of other kinds, an off-sales
688
licence holder should not then be permitted to provide a bar—and that is what is in the Bill. I feel that perhaps it is not so much a difference of opinion that we have here, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has just said: it is rather that we are not understanding each other, and I wonder whether I might invite the noble Lord now to say whether, in view of what I have just said, he could perhaps look at this again.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I am always willing to be flexible where I can, but I have given this matter quite serious consideration and I have to say that from the Government's point of view I would wish to resist this Amendment.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, since this Amendment stands in my name alone and the views I have expressed are personal, albeit strong, I would not seek to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Occasional permissions]:
6.28 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 23, line 28, at end insert ("subject to the modifications—

(a) that application under this section shall be made not later than seven days before the day for which the permission is requested; and

(b) that at the same time as the application is made the applicant shall give notice of the application to every occupier of premises in or adjacent to the premises to which the application relates.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I return to the occasional permission which we discussed before, and I again prefix my words by saying that I think this matter is handled in a slightly cavalier way. Here we are dealing with the way in which an application under Clause 34 to get an occasional permission is granted, and the blunt picture which the noble Lord presents is this, that under the Bill there is no reason why it should not be granted at 24 hours' notice by the clerk of the board. I am saying quite frankly that I do not think that is good enough. The noble Lord is looking at this, according to what was said at Committee stage, with slightly rosier glasses. As I have

689
said, he talks about the likely applicants as being Oxfam, the Red Cross and the British Sailors' Society. There is, of course, Burns' Night and all kinds of other events, none of which is conducted in complete silence.
I think the noble Lord should take this a little more seriously. He says that the police will know, and they will be able to deal with the disturbances. Perhaps they can, but what I think is more to the point is that they will not necessarily know the local conditions. For instance, someone in the neighbouring house may be unwell; they may be young people or there may be local reasons and there is no reason why the police should know about it. I am asking for two things which I do not think are unreasonable. I think it is a fair proposition to the neighbors that notice should be given seven days ahead. That gives people some opportunity to say that it is very objectionable to hold a noisy festival, for alcohol and noise are rarely altogether separated. Secondly, I move in this Amendment that there should be notice given to people living in the same house. These are reasonable and I do not think would interfere in any way with the proper use of casual permissions. For these reasons I ask the noble Lord to consider this Amendment.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I support this Amendment for it seems to me to fulfil two functions. I am sure it is wise to give at least seven days' notice before a function of this kind is likely to take place. I think that one ought to give more notice than that; but seven days, it seems to me, is minimal. With regard to (b) I think the point is a good one that you let the neighbours know and you give them fair warning so that if they do not like it they can protest or they can go away and not be there when the function takes place. But you are in a position of giving them some reasonable notice of what is going to happen. It could be said that if you are having a function which is a wellknown one, they would know automatically—in which case the business of letting them know individually does not apply. If they did not know, then at least you are giving the neighbours the right either to protest or not to be there when the function takes place. I think this would be wise. It
690
would also end some of the criticism there is of the fact that we are liberalising the licensing laws in Scotland—in 3. perfectly proper way; but there are people who are against it. This would be one way of pointing out in any given locality that there would be the opportunity for people to know what is going to happen so that they may have the opportunity to take their objections further if they wish. I support the Amendment.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, moved in Committee an Amendment similar to this, and I attempted at that time, wearing perhaps the rosetinted spectacles to which the noble Earl referred, to explain why the Government were of the opinion that the Amendments were unnecessary. Under Clause 37, licensing boards may make such regulations about the making of applications for special permissions as they think fit, and any licensing board which felt that it was necessary for an applicant for an occasional permission to give the board seven days' notice would have power to impose such a requirement.
However, the process of making application may very well obviate the need for any such regulation to be made, since an applicant must lodge a copy of his application with the clerk of the board in time for it to be processed if he wants it to be granted. This process includes the sending of a copy of the permission granted to the chief constable not less than 24 hours before the event to which it relates. The chief constable Las, of course, a right of objection to are such application, and an applicant is obliged to give him a copy of it when he judges it with the clerk of the board.
I do not think that it is necessary for the neighbouring occupiers to be notified since the chief constable can be relied on to make any objections necessary in the public interest. Moreover, such events would be relatively infrequent and would not be a source of concern to adjoining occupiers in the same way as would be permanent facilities attracting the full provisions under the Bill for objections. I hope that in the light of what I consider to be a number of cogent remarks, the noble Earl will not feel disposed to press the Amendment.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I am not unaware of the words used at the Committee stage. I just do not think that the Red Cross or any of these wellknown organisations would worry about giving seven days' notice for a party. The people who want 24 hours' notice are just the people that you want to watch closely. I deny absolutely flatly that the chief constable can speak for the public interest. That has no basis in fact. The police do not know what is going on everywhere, who is ill or what is to happen. I must say that the noble Lord is being a little unreasonable. I am asking for something which is quite small: that people should be given a little notice before a boozy festival takes place. I am not against boozy festivals from time to time; but the neighbours are entitled to a measure of protection. I am asking that they should have a little warning and the opportunity to take objection to it. I am not going to press this but I think the noble Lord is being less than fair in what could be quite a simple arrangement.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I do not want to prolong this matter but I do not know what the noble Earl means by "boozy festival". I thought that these voluntary organisations—and this particular clause refers to the voluntary organisations—would behave, as they have seemed to in my experience, with great responsibility. I do not think that you can stretch this into thinking in terms of a pop festival. I should not have thought that was relevant.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, a pop festival is not the only thing in this world. There are a number of gatherings which can use this and those who use it at short notice might be noisy ones. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Power of licensing board to make byelaws]
6.38 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 26, line 6, at end insert—
("(ff) for the granting of a licence of a category other than that applied for;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg the permission of the House to move this Amendment with a change of one word. I do this with the great deference which I have for draftsmen. I beg therefore to move in page 26, line 6, at end insert:
"… for the granting of a licence of a type other than that applied for;".
Your Lordships will have noted that I have substituted the word "type" for the word "category" as printed.
This is intended to give a little more flexibility. This means that if a man applies for one licence and another licence would be more effective he can be granted that. I have in mind that a man may apply for a public house licence along with a licensed restaurant and it might be suitable for a restaurant but not for a public house. It seems a pity—I am not certain about this—that the two years rule might apply and he might not be able to apply for any licence for a further two years. It would be simpler if he were to be allowed to be given a licence of a category other than that for which he has applied. I beg to move.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we have noted carefully what the noble Earl has said. As some noble Lords may be aware, there was a provision in Section 56 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1959, which gave a licensing court power, if it thought it inexpedient to grant a certificate of the type applied for, to grant a certificate of another type. It has been decided not to reenact this provision for two reasons; firstly, that it was seldom used and the local authorities foresaw no use for it; and, secondly, that it might be used to the detriment both of applicants and objectors. What we had in mind was a case where, perhaps, a restaurant licence was applied for and a public house licence was granted—as the noble Earl has said. People who had not objected to a restaurant licence being granted might feel justifiably aggrieved if a public house were to be opened in their neighbourhood.
It has been represented to us, particularly by the entertainment industry, that a provision of this type might be of advantage in a case where, for example, a public house licence was applied for and refused, say, for a cinema. Their argument is that the licensing board might feel prepared to grant some "lesser" licence, such as an

693
entertainment licence. We are, therefore, attracted by the noble Earl's Amendment, since it provides a means, because byelaws are subject to approval by the Secretary of State, of avoiding the risk that a board might occasionally seek to grant a licence of a type greater than that requested, hotel instead of restricted hotel or public house instead of restaurant. The Secretary of State would be able to ensure that if byelaws were made on this matter they would cater for the substitution of a lesser licence for a greater and not the other way round. The Government are happy to accept the Amendment, particularly as amended by the noble Earl. We are grateful to him for putting it down.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.41 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 26, line 19, leave out ("set out in a byelaw").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 19. It would be convenient if Amendment No. 20 were also considered with it. I raised this point in Committee and I then moved a different Amendment. This is another attempt to make an improvement in the Bill. If conditions are attached by a licensing board to a licence when they grant it, the aim is those should be such as have been approved by the Secretary of State and have become a byelaw. At present there are some local authorities under the existing system in Scotland who attach detailed conditions when they grant licences. For example, these conditions can govern whether darts or dominoes can be played on the licensed premises. They can be very detailed and quite trivial. I am not against conditions being attached in different circumstances in different parts of Scotland. I believe they should be set out in a byelaw if they are to be so attached. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, Clause 38 empowers a licensing board to make byelaws, subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Byelaws may require licensed premises to be closed on certain days, licenceholders to reside out with their licensed premises, off-sale shops to sell liquor in closed containers
694
only, and holders of hotel and public house licences to supply water and food. They may also provide for the licensing board to print a list of applications for licences and to set out conditions to attached to licences for the improvement of standards of, and conduct in, licensed premises. With the exception of the power to set out conditions to be attached to licences the existing byelawmaking power of licensing courts has a similar scope. Byelaws can only be made in relation to the matters listed in subsection (1) of the clause.
The Amendments are presumably intended to have the effect of limiting the conditions which may be attached to a licence to those set out in a byelaw. But I cannot see that they are necessary. The only condition which may be attached to a licence now under the clause is a condition set out in a byelaw by virtue of Clause 38(1)(f). If anything the Amendment widens the scope for conditions by allowing conditions to be attached which are set out in byelaws. It may be that the aim of the Amendment is to prevent a licensing board issuing a series of recommendations to licenceholders (the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, touched upon this) about matters which are not controlled by the licence—he referred to controlling the game of darts, among other things—and causing the licenceholders to fear that noncompliance with such "recommendations" puts retention of a licence in jeopardy. As I said in Committee, this situation, I believe, basically sterns from the absolute discretion in the granting of licences vested in the licensing courts by the existing legislation. The situation under the Bill will, however, be quite different for three main reasons.
The first reason is that the licensing board will not have absolute discretion but, under Clause 17, will be limited to four specified grounds for refusing an application for a licence. The second reason is that also, under Clause 17, an applicant will have a right of appeal to the sheriff against a board's refusal to grant or renew a licence and, under Clause 39, the sheriff may uphold an appeal on the ground that the board, in arriving at its decision, erred in law, acted contrary to natural justice or exercised its discretion in an unreasonable manner. The third reason that Clause 17(6) specifically provides a

695
right of appeal to the sheriff against a decision of a board to attach or not attach a condition mentioned in Clause 38(3). Taken together, the provisions in Clause 17 and 39 will adequately protect members of the licensed trade from capricious "recommendations" by licensing boards and revision of Clause 38 as proposed by the Amendments is unnecessary.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for that statement. He has divined from the discussion that we had in Committee the purposes of these Amendments. What he has said will give some reassurance to those worried about the attachment of trivial or minor conditions. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 58, insert the following new clause:
Restaurant in public houses may have permitted hours on Sundays in certain cases
—(1) This section shall apply to any premises for which a public house licence is held and in respect of which an application for Sunday opening has not been granted under Schedule (Sunday opening of premises in respect of which a public house licence or refreshment licence is or will be in force and Sunday restriction orders relating to licensed premises) to this Act—

(a) if the holder of the licence gives notice of the application of the section to the premises in accordance with subsection (6) below, and

(b) as from such date as may be specified in said notice:

Provided that a licence-holder shall not give notice of application as aforesaid, and this section shall not apply to the premises for which he holds his licence, unless—

(i) the licensing board for the area within which the premises are situated is satisfied that the premises are structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of habitually providing the customary main meal at midday or in the evening, or both, for the accommodation of persons frequenting the premises, and that the part of the premises mentioned in subsection (3) below does not contain a bar counter; and

(ii) in the case of premises situated in a new town as defined in section 52 of this Act, the committee constituted under section 47 of this Act for the new town have notified the licence-holder that they have no objection to the application of this section to the premises.

(2) While this section applies to any premises, the effect shall be that for the purposes mentioned in subsection (3) below there shall be permitted hours in those premises on Sundays, such permitted hours being the period between half-past twelve and half-past two in the afternoon and the period between half-past six and eleven in the evening.
(3) The purposes referred to in subsection (2) above are—

(a) the sale or supply to persons taking table meals in the premises of alcoholic liquor supplied in a part of the premises usually set apart for the service of such persons, and supplied for consumption by such a person in that part of the premises as an ancillary to his meal; and

(b) the consumption of alcoholic liquor so supplied.

(4) While this section applies to any premises, then for purposes other than those mentioned in subsection (3) above, or in parts of the premises other than the part so mentioned, or except as otherwise provided by this Act, there shall be no permitted hours on Sundays.
(5) This section shall cease to apply to premises on such day as may be specified in the notice if the holder of the licence gives notice of the disapplication of the section from the premises in accordance with subsection (6) below:
Provided that this section shall cease to apply to premises at any time on the licensing board ceasing to be satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (i) of the proviso to subsection (1) above.
(6) A notice of the application of this section to, or of the disapplication of this section from, any premises—

(a)shall be in writing;

(b) shall, in the case of a notice of application, specify the date from which the section is to apply to the premises and, in the case of a notice of disapplication, state that the section is to cease to apply to the premises on the date specified in the notice;

(c) shall be served on the chief constable not later than 14 days before the date specified as aforesaid.

(7) The holder of the licence for premises to which this section applies shall keep posted in some conspicuous place in the premises a notice stating that this section applies thereto and setting out the effect of its application, and if any licence-holder contravenes this subsection he shall be guilty of an offence.
The noble Lord said: I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if, in moving Amendment No. 22, I discuss with it Amendments Nos.24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34 and 44 which are all associated with Amendment No. 22. The new clause reenacts Section 8 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1962 in a slightly revised form to take account of what is likely to be the final shape of the Bill. Section 8 of the 1962 Act provides that restaurants and public houses may open on Sundays, and since that time the number which does so has steadily risen. In 1962 it was 22, but in 1974—the last year for which a

697
figure is available—it was 219. The new clause therefore caters for a well-established need since over 200 premises are affected by it. I hope that the House will accept the new clause in its present form even though it may not be completely consistent at this stage with the rest of the Bill. Some inconsistency can be accepted at this stage and, in due course, it is the Government's intention to endeavour to make the Bill completely consistent. The Amendments associated with the new clause, to which I have already made some reference, are wholly consequential and do not relate to any matter of principle. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, there is a point of drafting, how we handle this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, pointed out, this clause was dropped at the Committee Stage because it related to the Schedule which contained the restrictions on Sunday opening. But this is a saving clause because, as the noble Lord described, it will protect the position of what he said were now over 200 restaurants in public houses during the hiatus period before the new licensing boards are in existence and can receive applications. Those 219 restaurants might have to stop serving liquor or not be able to open on Sundays, as they now are, if the new clause were not in the Bill and the final shape of the Bill adopted a certain course—that is to say, there was no Schedule with restrictive provisions in it.
The difficulty is a procedural one: as this proposed new clause is originating in your Lordships' House, unless we allow it to go through and be part of the Bill, it cannot be considered in the Commons at all. Therefore, I would recommend that procedurally, as it is simply a saving clause which we would in any case wish to have in the Bill, and if the other place takes a view one way as opposed to the other they would have no opportunity of putting it in if we do not allow it to go through now. I would propose that Amendment No. 22 be agreed to, together with the associated Amendment, because that would then leave the other place with two options which are left fully open. They can decide to put in the Schedule with the restrictive conditions, perhaps altered, or they can decide to agree with us and not to have the fourth Schedule at all.
698
If they do that, they can disagree with these Amendments; so it is quite simple. But I think it would cause difficulty for these 219 restaurants in public house3 over the period of a year or so if we did not allow this clause to go through. It would leave the options open and this could be disagreed to by the other place, if they thought it necessary. So they could adopt one of the two courses open to them. I hope that my noble friends would agree to that suggestion.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend has said, but may I just say that this new clause is not identical with the clause that was in the Bill before. It is a little complicated, but I think there are at least two points on which it varies.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 59 [Other provisions as respects extension of permitted hours on Sundays]:
6.52 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 23:
Page 43, leave out line 23 and insert ("a public house licence, hotel licence, restricted hoi el licence, restaurant licence or refreshment licence is").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is in my name but I should explain that this Amendment, together with three or four others, was put down because they would have been necessary had we disagreed to Amendment No. 22. Since we have now accepted Amendment No. 22, there is no need to move this Amendment.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 43, line 24, after ("held") insert ("and to any premises for which a public house licence or refreshment licence is held and in respect of which an application for Sunday opening has been granted under Schedule (Sunday opening of premises in respect of which a public house licence or refreshment licence is or will be in force ant' Sunday restriction orders relating to licensed premises) to this Act").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 43, line 33, after ("section") insert ("(restaurants in public houses may have permitted hours on Sundays in certain cases)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:
Page 43, line 35, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection (1) of section (restaurants in public houses may have permitted hours on Sundays in certain cases)");
Page 43, line 37, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection (3) of section (restaurants in public houses may have permitted hours on Sundays in certain cases)").
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 43, line 40, leave out from ("and") to ("of") and insert ("subsections (5) to (7)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Exemption of international airports from restrictions on times at which alcoholic liquor may be sold or supplied]:
Lord TANLAW Lord TANLAW moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 44, line 24, leave out ("international").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is moved in order to follow up a point made during the Committee stage. It was raised on an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, for an extension of Sunday opening hours. During the course of that debate, bars operating inside airports in Scotland were discussed. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to let us know what airports in Scotland come under the heading of "international". A further point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. She said that seamen's canteens have a whole lot of this Bill attached to themselves whereas the airports did not seem to have been given quite the amount of thought that I, for one, and a number of other people would like to have seen. Are we not, by keeping the word "international" in this Bill, really going back to the traveller syndrome
It was said earlier today that we are getting away from the bona fide traveller having to travel a certain mileage to have a drink. Here we have the position that the bona fide international traveller is the only person who is allowed to have a drink at an airport. I think this is rather unfortunate because, certainly during the winter months, it is possible for passengers to find that aircraft are diverted or that they may have long waits at Scottish
700
airports. It is frustrating to find in such circumstances that the bar area is closed. It is not only a question of passing the time during the waiting period but there are a number of people who, though they would not normally take a drink in a public house, would do so at an airport because they have a genuine fear—though quite wrongly—of flying. I do not want to press this point too much, but I would say that airport bars are not necessarily used by habitual drinkers or indeed by members of the public so that they would not give rise to what is known as "alcohol abuse". But they are used by travellers who may have a long period of unscheduled time to wait before their aircraft either conies in or takes off. They might also, as I have indicated, like to have a drink for "semi-medicinal" purposes. I should like to have the views of the Government on these matters, and I beg to move.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Kinnaird, who much regrets that an appointment he had to postpone twice while he was attending the sittings of the Committee on this Bill, has kept him away from your Lordships' House this afternoon, I should like to support the Amendment. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, whether he could please tell us, either now or later, what is considered to be "a substantial amount" of international passenger traffic at airports. That is the phrase which is contained in Clause 62 of the Bill and which enacts an identical provision appearing in the 1959 Act. Certainly I think the time has come when we ought to look again at the treatment we mete out to travellers in this respect. It is with that thought that I offer my support to this Amendment.
6.58 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, Clause 62, as the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has just mentioned, reenacts Section 130 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1959. Perhaps I could just give some indication of the Government's thinking to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, together with some explanation as to how we see this provision. It enables the Secretary of State, who in this instance is the Secretary of State for Trade, to make an order to bring the clause into operation at an airport at which there is a substantial amount of international

701
passenger traffic. When the section is in operation the sale or supply of alcoholic liquor is not restricted within the examination station approved for the airport under the Customs and Excise Act 1952. But restrictions apply elsewhere in those airports. Such orders are in operation now at Prestwick, Aberdeen and Glasgow. It does not follow that at these airports alcoholic liquor is available for visitors or travellers on domestic flights, who are, I suspect, the categories of concern to the noble Lord. If such an order were made in Scotland it would not affect the availability of liquor at airport public bars.
Since it is likely that the noble Lord is concerned about passengers and not international passengers, I shall say a word more generally about airports. The Government had informal representations at an earlier stage from the British Airports Authority in Scotland that all parts of airports, and not only the customs examination area, should be exempt from the permitted hours provisions. For a number of reasons, we were not, and are not, able to agree that the exemption should be extended.
The Clayson Committee considered this proposal and, in paragraph 9.86 of their report, rejected it on the ground that it would afford too many opportunities for the public to evade the limits in force outside airports. It was suggested to us by the British Airports Authority that few members of the public frequent airport bars on a casual basis, and that the main customers are travellers and their friends and relatives. It was also suggested that, generally speaking, the distance of airports from residential areas, the prices charged for drink and car parking charges at the airports, and the control now exercised by the police at the airports were all factors which at present discourage the public at large, and which would ensure that there was no influx of casual drinkers. However, distance from residential areas, together with airport parking charges, might fail to discourage at least some sections of the population and, in the Government's view, could well add to the problem of drinking and driving.
A question of judgment is involved here and, on balance, I think it is better that travellers on domestic flights and their friends should suffer a minor inconvenience
702
of being able to drink only during the permitted hours, than that airports generally should be exempted from the licensing laws. Although I accept that there is force in some of the representations which have been made to us, on balance I do not think we can move just at this time.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, has the noble Lord any views as to what is an international airport? It is not described in the Bill. Is this a matter for the judgment of the Secretary of State?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords. I should need notice of that question. I cannot reply off the cuff. I will make certain that get the appropriate information and communicate with the noble Earl.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I am sorry that the Government have come down against this Amendment, as up to now they have been very wise and very generous in their views of these matters. It seems to me that we are anxious to encourage people to come here from overseas—they come from America and Europe all the time, as wet as from even further afield—and it must be a chilly arrival for them if at of our big airports they find that it is a time when they cannot get a drink. I agree with the noble Lord that it is a matter of judgment, but will the Government consider this again, perhaps in the other place, because it is most unusual to find in an airport a lot of people who have just gone them for a drink or a meal and are not going to travel somewhere on an aeroplane.
I should like this Amendment to be considered again. I realise that the noble Lord cannot do it here, but I hope very much that another place will consider it when the Bill goes hack there, because this is a limitation which may have further repercussions than just preventing ordinary citizens from going out to an airport for a drink on a Sunday, or out of permitted hours. I do not think this is a real problem, and it is much better. o cater for the people who are coming here, whom we want to encourage, and who ire well able at the moment to pay in their currency for our alcohol, which to them is very much cheaper than it is for us.
Lord GUEST: My Lords, what is the position of England in regard to non-

703
international airports? Are the permitted hours the same there as for licensed premises, or are they more lenient?
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for his comments and I hope that he will be able to look into this matter a little more fully with his colleagues. I am most interested in what he said about the attitude of the British Airports Authority. It is, indeed, my own attitude and I do not see some of the worries or bogeys, which the Government appear to think exist, about taking an adult view of air passengers' use of alcohol at airports.
One other point which the noble Lord might consider is that the British Airports Authority, and various other bodies in Scotland, often canvass air travellers and get them to fill in forms and questionnaires on the flights; for example, about catering facilities and so on. I would ask the noble Lord whether, in the next lot of questionnaires to which passengers at international airports in Scotland are exposed, one of the questions might well be along the lines of this Amendment, to see whether there is strong feeling among them about the bar hours at airports. They have been plagued with questionnaires, and this might be a relevant question which has not been asked before. But in view of the noble Lord's comments—
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting, and I do so merely because, upon advice which I have received, I am now able to give the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, a reply. I am advised that under the clause this is a matter for the Secretary of State for Trade. In Scotland, the orders which have been made are for Glasgow, Prestwick and Aberdeen—I made that point in my speech—and the airports are those which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State for Trade, have a substantial amount of international passenger traffic. In reply to the question put to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, namely, whether permitted hours at noninternational airports in England are the same as ordinary permitted hours, the answer is, Yes. I take that opportunity to place those remarks on the record.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, I would just say, finally, that it would be very silly
704
if we had to get a definition of the term "international passenger". It might be said, before the word got around, that a bona fide traveller had to travel three miles. Does an international passenger have to travel 100 miles, or across so many borders? I can see us getting into a little trouble, unless we take up some of the views of the British Airports Authority. Meanwhile, in view of the noble Lord's remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 45, line 34, after ("section") insert ("(restaurants in public houses may have permitted hours on Sundays in certain cases)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Power of police to enter licensed premises]:
7.7 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 55, line 23, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) A Constable may at any time enter and inspect any premises in respect of which a licence is in force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, under the Bill a constable is permitted at any time to enter and inspect licensed premises, except off-sales premises. Those are the only licensed premises which a constable cannot enter and inspect, unless there is a reasonable ground for believing that an offence is being committed. The effect of my Amendment would be to put all licensed premises in the same situation, so that a constable would not need to have reasonable grounds for believing that an offence was being committed before he went on to off-sales premises.
I am reverting to this matter, having raised it in the Committee stage, because I am concerned that this is a source of alcoholic liquor for young people. We have not had a debate today on the question of serving persons under the age of 18 with alcoholic liquor, but we discussed the subject in Committee. The Committee were, I think, unanimous in wishing to keep the prohibition and to make sure that it was operated. But there

705
is a loophole here, because I understand that quite a lot of the liquor which gets into the hands of young persons is obtained by them in some shops or supermarkets, and there is very little in the way of a challenge as to whether they are 18 or over, or younger. The situation could be improved if the police did not have this restriction on off-sales premises. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, in Clause 84, as well as re-enacting existing legislation, we are implementing a recommendation in paragraph 15.25 of the Clayson report. The Clayson Committee as well as considering the police right of entry to registered clubs, which we shall discuss later, considered police right of entry to licensed premises and recommended the retention, not the extension, as I was saying in Committee, of these powers. Premises operating under offsales licences are different in character from premises specialising in onsales and are so treated elsewhere in the Bill. For example, Clause 118 provides separate trading hours for offsales premises, and under Clause 10(2) applicants for new offsales licences are not required to produce plans of their premises to the licensing board. Clause 84 continues this distinction. It is recognised that offsales premises are much more like shops than they are like public houses, for example, and indeed many such off-sales premises are licensed grocers, much of whose business is the sale of groceries rather than alcohol.
So far as I am aware, this distinction has not inconvenienced the police in the past since, under the existing provisions, any constable who has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence is being committed may enter offsales premises. The Government, therefore, would not be disposed to accept the Amendment.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has said in moving this Amendment.1 consider that much more than any relaxation of hours or other liberalising of the public house and hotel laws in Scotland, it is the increase and the change in type of offsales premises that has come about in recent years that has led not only to an increase in the total consumption of alcohol but, particularly, to more alcohol coming into the hands of young persons.
706
As a publican you are standing behind your bar and someone comes in on behalf of a young person to purchase something and to carry it out to him. If he is local you will know at once what is up to, or usually you can have a fair guess and can challenge him. Publicans do everything in their power to ensure that alcohol sold does not go out from their premises to young people. But when one comes to offsales places such as a supermarket, which is normally found in a large town or city, any person who is old enough may come in and purchase alcohol and nobody will make inquiries. The person behind the counter is interested only in the fact of whether or not he is old enough to buy it and will serve what is wanted. What happens when he gets outside is another matter. I know for a fact that much alcohol purchased by adults in this way finds its way into the hands of young people.
It might be convenient to the House if, rather than have me rise twice, I say now that while I support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, I have joined my name to the Amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, which suggests the addition of the existing provision of two words which in Committee I suggested might help here. With that statement I reiterate my support for my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I am very disappointed in what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said. I personally was very happy to withdraw my Amendment in favour of what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, may I intervene so that we may retail some sort of measurable consistency. A great and pleasant surprise is in store for the noble Earl when we get to Amendment No. 36. So he should not do that. We are getting on not too badly.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I will not press the matter unduly if the noble Lord is prepared to say that. But I want to make the point that we are liberalising the law a great deal in Scotland, and we are all agreed on that. We also want to raise the standard of circumstances of entertainment of this sort

707
and we must make it quite clear that the police have the power to see that the law is obeyed. That is absolutely essential and that is the point I particularly wanted to make.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am glad to think that we have some expectation of some good news on the next Amendment where my noble friend Lord Selkirk and my noble friend Lord Gray have a good point on the same general subject. At this stage I would say only that I think the Government ought to keep their eye on this source of alcohol, where young people can get it much more easily than elsewhere. In view of what the noble Lord has said about the next Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw this one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 55, line 27, after ("offence") insert ("has been or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment and I do not think that I need say very much about it. There is always the problem of logic here. If you are to come in when the crime is taking place, you have to be present as the knife goes into the chap's stomach; but the words "has been committed", suggest that maybe—the crime was committed a long time ago. I feel that this Amendment broadly covers the point, that you can come in roughly when the crime is likely to be taking place. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I sympathise with the purpose behind the noble Earl's Amendment, which is to give power to the police to enter offsales licensed premises where they have reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has taken place; but it is the Government's view—and I want to emphasise this point—that such a provision would add little to the powers of police. The kind of offences which are likely to occur in offsales premises are not those which usually leave tangible evidence. They are, for example, offences of supplying drink out with the permitted hours of, as has
708
already been suggested this afternoon, serving young people under 18 years of age. Nevertheless, I accept that there is a view being expressed in your Lordships' House that a change would be useful and I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for what he has said.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 [Restriction on credit sales]:
7.17 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 56, line 24, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 38, because the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made representations in Committee to the effect that it should be possible for payment to be made by credit token in premises operating under an entertainment licence. The Government have also received similar representations from the entertainment industry, and on consideration we see no reason why this should not be allowed. I have tabled these Amendments and I hope that your Lordships will accept them.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, may I rise to thank the noble Lord for having met the point which raised at Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 56, line 25, after ("licence") insert ("or entertainment licence").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 113 [Power of police to enter clubs]:
7.18 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 39:
Leave out Clause 113 and insert the following new Clause:
Power of police to enter clubs
(1) If a justice of the peace or sheriff is satisfied by evidence on oath that there reasonable grounds for believing—

709

(a) that any registered club is being so managed or carried on as to give rise to a ground of objection to the renewal of its certificate of registration, being one of the grounds of objection specified in section 107 of this Act; or

(b) that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed in any registered club;

he may by warrant authorise a constable to enter the premises of such club at any time, if need be by force, and to search the premises and seize any documents relating to the business of the club and to take the names and addresses of any persons found in the premises.
(2) If any person found in the premises of a club refuses to give his name and address on being requested to do so by a constable acting under a warrant granted in pursuance of the foregoing subsection, or gives a false name or address on being so requested, he shall be guilty of an offence.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 39 I would mention also Amendments Nos.45 and 46 as these Amendments are linked. The new Clause 113 fulfils an undertaking given by the Government on Report in another place to maintain the status quo as regards police entry to registered clubs. It does this by replacing Clause 113 with a new clause in similar terms to those of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1959, Section 179, which contains the present law on the subject.
My Lords, I explained on Second Reading. that I proposed to make this Amendment. I moved to insert the new Clause 113 in Committee but it was defeated there upon Division. The strength of the Opposition in the other place to giving the police an unrestricted right of entry to registered clubs, which prompted the Government to give the undertaking to which I have referred, leaves me, in my view, with no alternative but to move the Amendments again.
The extent to which the police should have a right of entry to clubs is a matter of judgment and of some controversy. The arguments which carried most weight with the other place on Report were that a club is a private place and virtually an extension of the member's home; that it is controlled by a committee of members who could discipline their members who break club rules; that there was little firm evidence that clubs were breaking the law, and that existing powers of entry for the police with a warrant seem to be adequate. Similar arguments have been put to us by members of the club.
I touch now on Amendments Nos.45 and 46. Amendments to Schedule 4 are consequential on the new clause and specify a maximum fine of £50 for the offence of refusing to give a name and address or for giving a false name and address. Incidentally, the present penalty is £5. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. However, the right course is to leave things as they are at present which, incidentally, would be on the same basis as in England and Wales, and I hope the Amendment is accepted by your Lordships' House.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this is a subject on which there are differences of view. They do not follow Party lines. They are sometimes held very strongly in both directions. In your Lordships' Committee, a majority was found for excluding this new clause which the Government sought to introduce. I myself preferred the Bill without it, and I have made that clear. But I must point out to my noble friends 0at if we were to prevent the Government from including this clause at this stage, vie would procedurally stop the House of Commons from being able to consider this at all. As the long controversy which took place in the other place on this subject was ended only when the Government gave an undertaking to introduce a new clause of this kind here, I think there could well be a grievance from people with hold opposite views on the substance if the Commons then did not have a chance of considering the new clause, which was the cause of the controversy being ended in another place. So, for the benefit of the relationship between your Lordships' House and another place, we ought to allow this clause to be included in the Bill at this stage, even though I, and some of my noble friends I know, would prefer not to have it in the Bill.
This then gives another place a full opportunity to decide which option to take. Whereas if we do not allow this clause to come into the Bill at all, the other place are denied the opportunity of considering it at all, simply under our procedure. I thought I would make that point clear. That is the reason why I myself would commend including the clause at this stage, although on Committee I made it clear that I did not myself prefer this but preferred the Bill as it stands.
7.23 p.m.
Viscount BOYD of MERTON: My Lords, I must declare an interest in this clause and in the Bill itself. I am, and am glad to be, the patron of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association. They and I would much prefer that the police should have the same right in regard to clubs as they have in regard to licensed premises, so we welcome the fact that the Bill as we have it today provides for equality of treatment for all licensed premises.
I listened with respect to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, both on this proposed new clause and on the earlier Amendment No. 22. I see the validity of his arguments, but as I think he will not be surprised to know, I do not welcome the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. The provisions in the Bill, after all, follow the original decision of Her Majesty's Government that the recommendations of the Clayson Committee should be followed. The well conducted club has nothing whatever to fear from this power. It seems to me desirable that the police should have these powers, not least because of the very large increase in the number of clubs which have emerged in Scotland in recent years. In the last 20 years, while the number of clubs has trebled. I hope that this Bill, when it goes to the other place, will find that wise counsels will prevail, and that it will be recognised that if permitted hours are to be a reality then for good order and in fairness to all concerned all licensed premises should be treated alike.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I take it that, although the intention is to allow another place to discuss this clause, that would not prevent our discussing it ourselves. So I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, how he envisages his Amendment will work, in particular where a warrant is sought from the sheriff or a justice of the peace. How quickly can it be obtained? Is it a matter of minutes, hours, days or weeks?
To be effective, if there is trouble with clubs, we really need a warrant to be obtained very quickly indeed. One would expect that one would be able to go immediately to a justice of the peace with a warrant all ready if the police have reason to suppose that things are not going very
712
well in a club. If they are suddenly alerted to something which is quite definitely wrong, the warrant should be there, already signed, and they should be able to get it within a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes. It could happen. Unless this is so, there is a great deal to be said for what my noble friend Lord Boyd of Merton has said.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, if I may just respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, this Amendment in my name reaffirms the existing position under Section 179 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1959. The usual current practice is that if the police form the opinion that a club is not being conducted as it should be, they approach the sheriff and seek a warrant. In my experience, that is normally done the day before they decide to visit the club.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I am prepared to accept the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, but I should like to say, as I said in Committee, that I hope that the other place, when they talk about this, will realise how very strongly we feel that there should be equality of treatment in the question of licensing, inspections and so on, and the rights of the police in any licensed premises. I suppose many of us belong to clubs, and I can see no reason why the police, if they think there is something that is not quite as it should be in a club, should not be allowed to go there like anywhere else. It seems to me this is making a distinction.
I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, should feel that this is a distinction which he wants to perpetuate because it is a distinction which I think is wrong. One of the reasons why the enormous increase in clubs has taken place in Scotland in particular—the figure has risen from 912 clubs (I am not talking about pubs) in 1950 to 2,444 in 1975—is the restrictions we have had to date and which we are now going to do away with. That should make everything open and above board. I should not be surprised if a lot of these clubs did not disappear, because they are only methods of getting alcohol which cannot be bought in the ordinary pub. It would be a pity if the other place did not realise that this is

713
something which is entirely fair, and something which we will stick up for.
I cannot resist saying, because we have seen so much propaganda recently about your Lordships and the relationship with the House of Commons, that on this occasion we are making a really big gesture to the other place to allow them to discuss this Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, because we could certainly throw it out here without any difficulty at all. I wish only to put on Record how keen I am that we should preserve what is in the Bill now, and not take any other proposal such as that which the Government is putting forward.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I would ask your Lordships to keep very much in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that if there were no move to remove the purpose of this Amendment at this stage, then effectively those in the other place are unable, no matter what their view may be, to discuss it at all.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: That is why I am agreeing. I merely point out that we are being generous towards the other place, whereas on the television and in the newspapers we are always being accused of overriding them.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has come to this view. I think this clause ought to be excluded. For reasons of logic and public interest this clause should not be in this Bill. Clubs are there to provide facilities for drinking, not protection from the police, and that is what this clause is providing. I very much hope that when this Bill comes back we will find this clause out of it. I regret that we are not taking advantage of the opportunity we have of removing it. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that we are giving way on this at his request. There is no reason why we should, because I think this clause is entirely wrong. I only hope he will try to persuade his colleagues that in the opinion of many people in this House this is not a proper clause to be included.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I do not think flexibility is all on one side of your Lordships' House.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I should like most warmly to support my noble friends Lord Boyd and Lord Selkirk. I think it is utterly wrong to go out of our way to make police inspection of the clubs different from other licensed establishments. As I said earlier when we were debating the Sunday opening, it is much easier for the police to haw. uniform powers throughout the whole of the licensed premises; we have that now, and we can be quite sure that the police would be in a much stronger position to deal with these drinking dens. Some of these clubs require very close supervision; they are up to all sorts of tricks, and they have been causing a great deal of trouble to the police in the past. The Chief Constables' Association of Scotland have made representations, the chief constable of Strathclyde and the chief constable of the Lothians have also made representations on this.
The Government are flying in the face of the advice which I am fairly certain they must have received from tie chief constables. I most certainly would support the noble Lord, Lord Boyd, if he proposes to take this to a Division.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I should like to say how much I regret that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has had to give us the advice he has this evening. I hope that another place will study the debate we had during our Pubic Bill Committee session. I would only say once again that I believe this clause runs contrary to natural, commonsense justice.
Lord TANLAW. My Lords, during Committee stage I abstained on this particular issue, because it was controversial and I felt I was not fully briefed as to why people spoke with such strength. I have taken further advice and made further inquiries about the implications, and I am again slightly surprised at the strength of feeling of the speakers against the Government's Amendment, which, by the way, I wish to support. I believe that the clubs offer some form of privacy. If the Bill is allowed to pass as it stands, then there is some form of invasion of privacy, without this second check of getting the warrant from the justice of the peace or the sheriff. Therefore, without more ado, I should like to see this clause included in the Bill, and I am delighted

715
that we will not have to have a Division. I have also taken advice from other members of Lord Campbell of Croy's Party, and I do not think in all honesty that he speaks for some Scottish Members who feel equally strongly in favour of this kind of Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord was here earlier, but I said that there were strong feelings which did not follow Party lines on this subject.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord did not make it quite clear that it was within his own Party. I am more happy and relieved now to he able to support the Government in the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 123 [Local authority premises.]:
7.37 p.m.
Lord BALERNO Lord BALERNO moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 75, line 36, attend insert—
("Provided that a licensing board shall not grant any licence under this section unless a scheme for the provision of facilities for the sale and supply of alcoholic liquor at such premises has been put out to tender and no satisfactory proposals have been received as a result of such offer.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Clause 123 the operative words are,
"a licensing board may grant any licence in respect of such premises."
Those are premises owned by the local authority from which it derives its existence. This comes back to the question of being judge in its own cause. A licensing hoard would naturally automatically give a licence to what one might call its own master, its own authority at any rate. The Amendment I propose states that before doing so the licensing board should put it out to tender and obtain proposals, and if it gets satisfactory proposals from outside then it should consider them and give them a fair trial.
The other people who would be likely to be interested would be ratepayers, almost certainly, of the authority. Why should a local authority discriminate against some of its own ratepayers? I could go on and give your Lordships examples; in the English Countryside Act
716
provision is made for the local authority, or the equivalent of the licensing board, to put out to tender the opportunity to sell liquor on its own premises. But I will not do that. It is a very simple matter that I propose here, and I trust the Government will give it a good run. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I think I have been rather flexible this afternoon; some might agree with that. But on this occasion I do not think I can give the noble Lord's Amendment a very good run from the Government side. The Government's view is that if local authorities are to be allowed to hold licences at all—and the terms of the noble Lord's Amendment would seem to concede that this might be inevitable—the Government see no reason why the activities of the local authorities in this sphere should be confined to premises which the licensed trade think will prove unprofitable. There is a judgment to be made here: should or should not local authorities be able to hold licences and in a sense provide a service which has normally been more traditionally a function of the licensed trade.
The Clayson Committee said the local authorities should. It is the Government's view, and it has been the view of Parliamentary Commissioners on Private Bills, that they should. Noble Lords might remember that a local authority will be able to obtain licences only for premises in which it provides social, cultural or recreational facilities under the terms of Section 91 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Applications by local authorities, like any other applications, will be subject to the procedures for advertising and objections, and there will be the safeguard of an appeal to the sheriff. These are the reasons why the Government would not be able to give, to use the noble Lord's own words, a fair run to his Amendment.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I do not quite see how you get an appeal to the sheriff, because it would not be possible for an applicant to make application for premises which he did not own or did not rent, and of which he was not at that time in possession.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I am just looking up the clause at the moment.

717
I shall certainly write to the noble Lord. I cannot get to the clause as I go through the Bill. I can emphasise that I am not misleading him when I suggest that there is a right of appeal to the sheriff.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, in view of the fact that there does not seem to he anybody who wants to support me, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 139 [Transitional provisions]:
7.41 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 83, line 38, after ("sections") insert ("8").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment adds Section 8 fees payable by applicants to a licensing board to the list of sections which, between their coming into effect and 1st July 1977, shall have effect as if the references to a licensing hoard and to a licence were references to a licensing court and to a certificate. It is desirable that the fees payable by applicants which date from 1954 and are obviously in need of revision and which will be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, should be prescribed in good time for the start of operations by licensing boards in July 1977. The Amendment will enable regulations to be made before the 1st July 1977. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities are being consulted about the new levels of fees. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Penalties for offences against provisions of this Act]:
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 43:
Page 92, line 10, leave out lines 10 to 12.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not move this Amendment for the reason I gave on the other Amendments. It is not necessary since one of the Government's Amendments has been accepted.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 44:
718
Page 92, line 10, column I, after ("Section") insert ("(restaurants in public houses may have permitted hours on Sundays in certain cases)(7)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move formally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 101, leave out lines 9 and 10.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move formally.
The Earl of SELKIRK: Under the Amendment which we have it serted in Clause 113 you can have entry to the club by a sheriff's certificate. But surely if you were to oppose the sheriff's. certificate for coming into a club, that would constitute an offence. The noble Lord has taken out the offence of refusing to admit a constable to the club. I wonder whether that is correct or not?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, under my Amendment, which at the moment has gone back into the Bill, the constable is admitted to the club upon his getting a warrant from the sheriff. We arc back to the 1959 position where the constable goes to the sheriff and seeks a warrant and enters the club. That is the position we are now in.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord has just taken out as a crime:
"Refusing to admit a constable to club."
I only ask, if he has a sheriff's certificate whether that does not continue to be a crime.
Lord KIRKHILL: Well, my Lords, I should have to take advice on that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 101, line 11, column 2, after ("address") insert ("or giving false name or address").
The noble Lord said: My Lord, I beg to move formally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
7.45 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons and the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons and the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO WORDS RESTORED TO THE BILL AND A COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE BILL
[References are to Bill (184) as first printed by the Lords. Cannons Amendments and Reasons are in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos.1–2.]
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Aquaculture deemed to be agriculture
".—(1) Aquaculture shall, for all purposes, be deemed to be a part of agriculture and all enactments applying to agriculture shall, as appropriate, apply to aquaculture.
(2) Aquaculture is the culture and the harvesting of animals and plants in water."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting the above Reason may be deemed sufficient
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2:
"Because it would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting the above Reason may be deemed sufficient".
It may be appropriate if I say a few words. We had a fairly substantial debate when
720
the Amendment was moved on the Committee stage of the Bill in this House, and we have of course debated fish farming on a number of occasions before and since, and quite rightly in my view as it is a very important subject. I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in his place.
Nevertheless, I think that there are a few new points to be made, and others that may need reiteration. The fish currently being farmed in this country are of course of the high value types and so are those in which there is at present some commercial interest in development. It is a safe assertion that only high value species will be cultivated within the foreseeable future because of the economics of the enterprise. Rainbow trout are the only fish in serious commercial production in this country at present, and reasonably valid comparisons can perhaps be made in respect of that species. France and Italy each produce about 15,000 tonnes a year; Denmark 12,000 tonnes, and West Germany 5,000 tonnes. There is no significant production in other EEC countries.
Taken at their face value these figures indeed suggest that we, as a country, could do somewhat better, and this of course has been said on certain occasions in this House. Given that the British industry has expanded from virtually nothing a decade ago to 400 fish farms today, there is no obvious reason why we should not catch up with the leaders within a few years. I do not wish to suggest that disabilities do not exist. These are precisely the points which the Government Departments concerned are discussing with representatives of the industry.
Rather than repeat these points, perhaps I may now offer an overall view of the situation as the Government see it. As I have said, coupled perhaps with a start on Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout are the only species we are now cultivating on a commercial scale. This is a viable activity, and there seems to be no reason why it should not go on expanding in the years to come. Salmon, sea trout, turbot and dover sole present serious problems, to which a great deal of research effort, both by the Government and by commercial interests, is being devoted. Shellfish cultivation is likely to remain a relatively

721
minor activity, although a very important one—just as our oysters since Roman times have been second to none—but work is being done on nontraditional species and nontraditional methods of cultivation.
It has been pointed out that greater United Kingdom production of farmed fish would mean a net saving in imports, and naturally the Government hope that it will. However, it is important to stress the word "net", because most of the feedingstuffs used are imported at high cost. It has also been pointed out that United Kingdom imports of salmon and trout in 1975 cost £42 million. That is an accurate figure, but it does not give the full picture, because about £33 million of that was accounted for by canned salmon; this is a different species from the Atlantic salmon which we might be farming and is in any case, in its presentation, a completely different product.
I come to the question before the House. We believe the clause to be unsatisfactory in form. It is fair to say that the Opposition, both in this House and in another place, accept that that is so. Nevertheless, the clause has given rise to useful debates in both Houses and the Government, in deciding how best to help the industry, will take full note of all the points that have been made. Here I must say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley—who has sent her apologies in that because of a longstanding engagement she is unable to he here this evening—and of course to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his constructive attitude.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 2—(Lord Strabolgi.)
7.53 p.m.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for his statement. He would not expect me not to have some observations to make on it, but before doing so I wish to reiterate what he said about my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley, who is exceedingly sorry that she cannot be here for the ill news tonight. The reason why the Commons disagree is given as a financial one, and I thought that Lord Strabolgi attempted
722
to elucidate that a little further. However, I question whether he went as far as he might have gone in that direction.
As I understand it, the imports of fish to this country are running at about £6 million a year at the present time. The price of the net extent of importation continues and I am afraid that the price will go up considerably in the very near future. More attention should there for be paid to getting on with fish farming and, as far as we could make out when doing some sums when the original Amendment was going through this House, it appeared that the cost to the Government of fish farming research plus anything arising from alleviation of rates and possible subsidies could amount in total to something under only £2 million, while the net saving to the country would be very considerable.
Lord Strabolgi made a point about it being the dearer types of fish, luxury fish, which were the most easy to cultivate. That may be so, but does it matter so long as we have good edible fish? Today, salmon or rainbow trout are a delicacy on the market, but if I remember aright, the first debate we had in recent years on this subject, which was on a Motion moved by my noble friend Lady Emmet, caused headlines in the Press the following day saying "Trout and chips", and obviously it could be done. The price of trout will come down once we get going efficiently on a proper fish farming basis and people will be delighted to eat trout instead of plaice, herring and mackerel. Certainly I should prefer trout if I could bay it at about the same price as those other fish. We could be getting it at about the same price quite easily when we consider the present parlous state of our fishing industry.
Having made that point—and I do not want to rub it in any more than I have—I wish to add one point in conclusion. A little bird has whispered in Scotland, and from that I understand that Lord Strabolgi has really been rather busy behind the scenes, in spite of the hard work he is doing in front of us here on so many Bills. I have been led to believe that quite an important conference will be taking place at a very early date this month and that that may eventually lead to a better recognition of the fish industry and its national importance.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, far be it for me or any of us on this side of the House to quarrel with any efforts the Government are making in order not to spend money. On the other hand, there is this question of imports of food, which are very considerable and expensive. If we can find an alternative form of food which we can cultivate, as I am sure we can, then it will be possible, as my noble friend Lord Balerno said, for us to be getting rainbow trout as cheaply as herring. We must begin somewhere, and naturally I am disappointed that the Government have thought fit, on this extremely original suggestion, that they cannot give the aquaculture industry more recognition.
I can remember—I am sure that many noble Lords can—a time when chicken was eaten only by people who could afford to buy expensive food. Chicken was considered a luxury. Today, chicken is about the cheapest food one can buy, much cheaper than other meat, and that has all come about because of new methods, new developments and a certain amount of money spent on them. The net result has been that chicken is now produced as a very popular food at quite a reasonable price, when in days gone by—and I am talking about quite a long time ago—it was quite rare and expensive.
I visualise that if we could develop the fish farming industry—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is as keen to do that as any of us—then quite rapidly we would be providing a cheap food, or at any rate a cheaper food (food is going up in price all the time) which would be of great value to a very wide section of the public. I am sad that this is one of the suggestions made by this House which the other place has seen fit to turn down. It is a great pity.
8 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has the problems of fish farming very much in the forefront of his mind. This was evidenced by his speech on the Amendment, which was so mellifluous that it made me think that he intended to invite us to disagree with the Commons in their rejection of our Amendment. I know that the other place has not agreed to put aquaculture into the Bill but the mere
724
fact that it has been considered has highlighted the importance of the subject, and indeed the noble Lord emphasised, either inadvertently or intentionally—I believe the latter—its importance only yesterday in reply to a Question by my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley. Then he pointed out that over the last 10 years the number of fish farms had increased from 20 to 400. This is colossal and it is an indication of the growth of the new industry. If the Amendment has done nothing else, it will have highlighted the importance of the industry.
From all points of view, the industry seems to fall between all the stools. It is not farming, it is not fishing. It is rated in some places and Berated in others. One cannot get investment grants for it, one cannot get capital grants and, as I understand it, one cannot get development grants. It seems, for the purpose of legislation, to be neither fish, fowl nor good red herring. I believe that when my noble friend Lady Elliot referred to the situation of chickens she was right because the aquaculture industry is going through the same stage that the broiler industry went through 20 odd years ago and it has just the same problems.
I well remember an occasion when a High Court judgment was given, I believe by none other than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on the question of whether broiler houses should be derated. The operative result was that those birds which, by the nature of the method under which they are kept, had to be kept inside, could, if they were allowed out on the ground for an hour a day, have their buildings derated because it could be shown that the birds had had contact with the land. I well remember that judgment and it showed what an absurd situation the industry was in then. The broiler industry has come into its own, and has been recognised as an industry that has produced a great deal of meat very inexpensively. I believe that this is the situation in which we shall find fish farming. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will keep this very much in the forefront of his mind because at some time in the future some Government somewhere will have to try to put the aquaculture industry into some form of legislative context.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 3–4.]
Clause 17, page 21, line 6, after second the "insert" sole (or sole surviving)"
The Commons agreed to this Amendment and made the following consequential Amendment to the Bill:
Page 22, line 36, leave out paragraph (a).
8.13 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. I need not detain your Lordships for more than a moment over the Amendment. The Commons have agreed to your Lordships' Amendment No. 3, and as a consequence it is necessary to delete subsection (5)(a) of Clause 17, which covers the same ground as the words inserted by Amendment No. 3. Subsection (5)(a) is no longer necessary and it could be confusing for the same point to be covered twice in the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for explaining this. As he rightly says, it is a consequential Amendment and we are glad that the other place has agreed to accept one of the Amendments that we sent down.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos.5–6.]
Clause 17, page 21, line 12, leave out paragraph (d).
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would unduly restrict the class of persons eligible to apply for a direction giving entitlement to a tenancy of the holding.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6.
Amendment No. 5 would have left out Clause 17(1)(d), dealing with the "treated child". The question of how far the limits of eligibility under the family succession provisions should be drawn has rightly exercised both Houses for a considerable time. The Opposition have been mainly concerned to restrict the number of close
726
relatives who could apply for the vacant tenancy. The Government, on the other hand, recognising that the scheme is concerned with an inheritable right—and I would draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 19(4)—have felt bound to follow precedent and to adopt the formula laid down by the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act which was passed only 12 months ago. The Opposition in both Houses have also felt that the meaning of "treated child" was obscure. I would, however, draw your Lordships' attention to the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary in another place to prepare a note of guidance on the meaning of "treated child" for the tribunal secretaries to issue to anyone who inquires. I am sure that that will go a long way to meet some of the difficulties that have been raised.
I should like to make one final point. It was eventually agreed by most noble Lords that if sons or daughters, including adopted sons or adopted daughters, were to be considered as eligible persons, it was only fair that stepchildren and forte children should be considered eligible to apply as well. That is a very valid point. I have to advise noble Lords that, under their Amendment, stepchildren and foster children would not be eligible after all. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that this would be unjust.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 6.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am bound to say that we had hoped that another place would have agreed with this Amendment because it was put in to restrict the numbers of people who would be eligible for a hereditary tenancy. It was meant to do just that. However, the Fact that this Amendment is not accepted means that a stepchild, a foster child and, indeed, a child who has been taken in without any formal adoption can, provided he has been treated by the deceased telant for any length of time as a child of the family in relation to any marriage of the deceased, lay claim to the tenancy. In our view, this is a very sweeping provision and it gives a person who is not a blood relative of the deceased tenant the right to lay claim to a tenancy of a holding which may

727
go on for the next 60 to 90 years. That is a considerable right to give to a person who is not a blood relation, and we thought that it went too far. However, another place, having reconsidered this, thinks that it is suitable and we would certainly accept it, though with a degree of disappointment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
8.8 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos.7–8.]
Clause 17, page 21, line 38, leave out "and without prejudice to section 20 of this Act)".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the words left out are needed in view of the restoration to the Bill of Clause 21 (Application by not fully eligible person to be treated as eligible).
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 8. It may be for the convenience of the House if I deal at the same time with Amendment No. 17, to which the Commons have disagreed but have proposed Amendments Nos.18 and 19 to the words restored to the Bill.
My Lords, during discussions in Standing Committee in another place there was pressure for some means of avoiding too rigid an application of the definition of "eligible person". The Government had no desire to introduce the possibility of further hardship in the application of the rules of a scheme which was intended to prevent hardship, and as a result, moved the inclusion of Clause 20. This clause allows the Agricultural Land Tribunal to exercise a certain amount of discretion over the conditions of eligibility when it appears to them that in all the circumstances it would be fair and reasonable to do so. The Opposition in both Houses have opposed this clause—most sincerely I realise—but if I may take a simple case where a son had worked on the farm alongside his father for four years 11 months and 28 days and his father then died, should the son not be allowed in any circumstances to apply to the tribunal for the vacant tenancy? That would be the position if the discretionary Clause 20 were not in the Bill.
728
The Government believe the case for Clause 20 to be a strong one and another place has restored the clause to the Bill, but with two Amendments to meet points made very properly by noble Lords opposite. It was pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and other noble Lords at the Committee stage that the phrase, "to some extent" on page 27, line 18, went too far and would allow close relatives who hardly started to qualify to apply under the clause for consideration. This was not our intention. The Government wish to help the applicant who is a near miss on the basic terms of eligibility, not the applicant who is only just a starter. Therefore the words, "to some extent" have been replaced by "to a material extent" which is Amendment No. 18. This gives a different and more positive emphasis and closely resembles an Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
Amendment No. 19 is also a simple one. Noble Lords opposite strongly criticised as obscure the drafting of Clause 20(4). I must say that I agree that they were absolutely right on this. The words in Amendment No. 19 serve no practical purpose in that they cover a contingency with which the tribunal could deal whether or not they were in the Bill. Therefore, it would be better if they were omitted altogether. Amendment No. 7 is a consequential Amendment as Commons Reason No. 8 makes clear. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 8.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for explaining so clearly exactly how these Amendments work and for refreshing our minds as to the context in which they were moved. I say that quite sincerely because sometimes when these Amendments come back from another place one finds them a little complicated and difficult to fit into the pattern of our own debates. We had a long debate—and quite rightly so—on the question as to who was eligible to claim a tenancy. Of course, if you wish to claim the right to the tenancy of a farm—and those are strong words—you have to show that you are eligible to do so.

729
Clause 17 makes clear the hoops you have to go through. One part of it says that you have to be a husband, wife, daughter, child of the deceased and so forth, and the other part says that you have to serve five years out of the last seven years on the farm. On the assumption that you have eligibility as a test, that is reasonable, but what we felt was unreasonable was that having decided on the provisions the Government then put in Clause 20. This says that if you are not eligible, Clause 20 permits you to be eligible. This seemed to us to be an absurdity.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned the case of a son who has been there for four years 11 months and 28 days. Of course this is a great hardship, but if you draw a line anywhere in any Bill you are bound to find cases of hardship and I am not sure that that in itself is a just reason for including Clause 20. However, another place has considered this; it has decided that Clause 20 should be put in, and has modified Clause 20. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, quite rightly said, it has modified it by saying that a person has to have served not just some part of a probationary period on the farm but a material part. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, will be delighted to know that that in itself will give a lot of possibilities for lawyers to argue the difference between "some part" and "a material part". I agree that there is some difference; I am not quite certain how much difference, because I presume that "material" is rather less than "major", and "major" must be more than 50 per cent.; so presumably if "material" is not as large as "major" it nevertheless means something less than 50 per cent.
So here we have this clause put back with this Amendment which will allow people to claim a tenancy if they have had some part of their time on the farm which is rather less than 50 per cent. but rather more than just some part. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for explaining this, and indeed to another place for deciding that even though they wanted this clause put back they nevertheless felt that it should be put back in a slightly strengthened form to that in which it came here.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos.9–10.]
Clause 17, page 22, line 28, after "course" insert "in agriculture or in a subject which would improve his qualification for farming".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would unduly restrict the class of persons eligible to apply for a direction giving entitlement to a tenancy of the holding.
8.19 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed. The educational concession has been discussed in great detail in both Houses. I accept entirely that this Amendment represents a genuine effort by noble Lords opposite to find a compromise between the tight restriction as originally drafted the Bill that the formal training had to be in agriculture and the wide definition which allows the further education to be in any subject. I acknowledge the helpful spirit in which the Amendment was made, but I am afraid it is unacceptable to the Government. The main reason for this is that the definition as qualified by the Amendment would be capable of different interpretations. The same arguments that have occupied so much of the time of both Houses would be repeated in the Agricultural Land Tribunals, with the inevitable result of lack of uniformity between them. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that this would 'De rather unfair.
Perhaps I might emphasise one point which may have been overlooked. This is that the educational concession relates only to the eligibility of the close relative to apply to the Tribunal for the tenancy. It certainly does not mean that the applicant who has spent three of the fiveyear qualifying period studying, say, Sanskrit will get the tenancy—far from it. He or she will have to satisfy the far more difficult tests which the Tribunal will apply in determining his or her suitability to become the tenant of the holding. As the two lay members of the Tribunal will be chosen from panels of persons nominated by the CLA and the NFU, as I am sure noble Lords would be glad to I ear, to represent both the landowning and the farming interests—all of them practical men—I feel sure that they will inquire

731
into the applicant's training and experience in agriculture—Clause 19(8)(a)—with great diligence; and so they should. With this reassurance that the suitability test provides a completely adequate safeguard I hope that noble Lords will decide not to press the Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 10.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we had a full and exhaustive discussion over the possibility of this Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, both here and in another place, and I think that our minds were almost exhausted of the possibilities of the people who could or who could not be eligible if the Amendment were or were not in the Bill. It was a wide discussion and another place has come to a decision and we are happy to abide by it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 11–13.]
Clause 17, page 23, line 36, after "if" insert "either (a)".
Page 24, line 5, at end insert "or,
(b) on the last occasion when there died a sole (or sole surviving) tenant (within the meaning of subsection (1) above) of the holding or of such an agricutulral holding as is described above a direction as mentioned in (i) above or a grant as mentioned in (ii) above was made in favour of any person mentioned in paragraphs (c) or (d) of subsection (1) above."
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because they would unduly restrict the operation of the provisions about succession in Part 11 of the Bill.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendments Nos.11 and 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 13:
"Because they would unduly restrict the operation of the provisions about succession in Part II of the Bill".
There is little I need say on this Amendment, because the matter of the duration of the scheme has been debated at considerable length in both Houses. The issue, though extremely important, is a relatively straightforward one. On the
732
one hand, the Opposition wish to see the application of the scheme—that is, the right to apply to the Agricultural Land Tribunal for the vacant tenancy—restricted to one generation, whereas the Government, on the other hand, believe that it should provide for two transfers within a family beyond the existing tenancy, which will cover up to two generations.
I should explain, so as to make the position quite clear, that there is no inevitability about the two transfers when a direction has been made by the Agricultural Land Tribunal. When a tenant dies and his close relative applies for and is granted the tenancy, it does not follow automatically that on the first successor's death, his successor will get the tenancy. On the contrary, the same procedure will have to be followed again, and except where the tenancy passes by agreement, applicants will have to apply to the Tribunal and go through all the tests as to eligibility and suitability as before. And the landlord on his part will have the same opportunity to apply to the Tribunal for consent to the operation of the notice to quit. What Clause 17(5)(f) provides for is that, after the second succession under the terms of the scheme, the right to apply to the Agricultural Land Tribunal for a direction entitling the applicant to the vacant tenancy will cease to have effect.
I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that the Government's decision was not an easy one and it was not taken lightly. But we feel most sincerely that we have struck the right balance between the interests of the landlord and his family on the one hand, and the tenant and his family on the other hand. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 13.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, this Amendment is of course of a very different nature. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said that the Government's decision was not an easy one, nor was it lightly taken. I am bound to say that I think that it was a wrong decision. We put down an Amendment seeking to limit the transfer

733
of the tenancy to one generation; the Government have sought to limit it to two generations.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said that there is no inevitability of transfer. But the fact is that under this Amendment a landlord loses the right to his farm for up to 90 years. If one assumes that the average length of a tenancy is 30 years, the existing tenant may have it for 30 years, he can pass it on to his successor, under the operation of this Bill, for another 30 years, and it can go on to the successor's successor for a further 30 years. So in effect the landlord has lost the right to his farm, lost the right to choose the tenant of his farm, and indeed lost the right to his assets for what may be 90 years. That is virtually in perpetuity, because one shudders to think what would happen after a family has been in a farm for 90 years if the landlord then wishes to get back his farm.
I believe that this is a very damaging feature of the Bill. I will quite simply tell your Lordships why: because it effectively will put an end to the landlordtenant system, in so far as no tenant farm which comes up for letting is now likely to be let, unless the circumstances were out of the norm. It may be that a landlord will find that there are prevailing reasons why he should let a farm, but now that the provisions of this Bill are to become an Act any landlord will know that when a farm becomes vacant, if he then lets it again he will lose the right to that farm for up to 90 years.
I really believe that this will deal a savage blow not only to agriculture but to tenant farmers, because however reasonable the arguments may be for the hereditary tenancy system the Government have, by the Bill, put a situation about where there will not be any farms to let. Therefore, there will not be any new tenant farmers, and any prospective tenant farmers will know that they are going to find it very difficult indeed now to hire a farm. I fear that it will be this Government who will be remembered as a Government who have effectively removed the ability of aspiring young men to become farmers in their own right, and they will be remembered as the Government who have dealt a savage blow to the landlord-tenant system.
734
I am bound to say that I feel that this kind of measure, together with the measure which we were discussing yesterday, and which we will be discussing tomorrow—the Rent (Agriculture) Bill—are the type of measures which are introduced for one specific case. Understandable though the reasons for that introduction may be, they are introduced to remedy specific cases of hardship; and yet the effects that they are going to have on the total running of agriculture are going to be quite enormous. I do not want to mince my words in the slightest about that. I do not want, by not mincing them, to sound offensive to the noble Lord because I do not want to be offensive; but I want to make it perfectly clear to him that I believe that this provision in the Bill, which another place has sought to keep, is going to result in there being very few farms to let; and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolg, will be able to think back and realise what a great disservice this was to British agriculture.
I remember the noble Lord, Lord Peart, saying with justification the other day that there have been a lot of good Ministers of Agriculture who have come from the Party opposite, such as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, a most distinguished person. They did a great deal for British agriculture, and would not underestimate that one little bit. But I will say this, that they did not produce this type of measure, which will have a debilitating effect on agriculture and on tenant farmers in the future.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, rise to support my noble friend. This evening we are witnessing rather a sad and solemn event; nothing less than the demise of the landlord and tenant system, which over the past 200 years has been, I would almost say, the glory of British agriculture. Without it, we would never have made the strides in the world which we did. We were the pioneers of almost every agricultural invention for over 150 years, and that was very largely because we had the landlordtenant system and the landlords themselves were interested in the improvements of their farms and in innovations. You just have to go back 150 years and consider the history of agriculture since then. What was the forerunner of our agricultural show? It

735
was the Duke of Bedford and the Woburn sheepshearing. He had his tenants and he looked after his tenants. Granted, there were some bad landlords, but on the whole the system worked so that the standard of agriculture in Britian was the envy of the whole world. That was the position right up to well into the present century.
My Lords, times, I agree, are different. There are new shibboleths; new, false doctrines going about; and we have to bow the knee to them. But I question whether we have been right to exchange for the benevolent landlord, the banks, insurance companies and finance houses. My Lords, it is a sad story that this should have happened to British agriculture.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.14–16.]
Clause 19, page 25, line 44, leave out from below, to end of line 3 on page 26 and insert "give a direction granting the tenancy of the holding to the applicant whom the landlord may choose from amongst those applicants who are deemed to be suitable by the Tribunal."
Page 26, line 9, leave out from "applicant" to "the" in line 10.
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments forms the following Reason:
Because the selection of the most suitable person to be the subject of a direction giving entitlement to a tenancy of the holding ought to be left to the impartial judgment of the Agricultural Land Tribunal.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendments Nos.14 and 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 16. My Lords, the question of the landlords' rights under the family succession scheme has exercised the minds of both Houses over a considerable period of time. Noble Lords opposite and the Opposition in another place all feel, and I know feel most sincerely, that where the Agricultural Land Tribunal consider, as provided in Clause 19(6), that more than one applicant is both eligible and suitable to take over the vacant tenancy and the landlord is not prepared to agree to a joint tenancy, he—that is the landlord—should choose which of the suitable applicants is to be the new tenant.
As Reason No. 16 sets out, the selection of the most suitable person for the
736
vacant tenancy should be left to the impartial judgment of the Agricultural Land Tribunal. But, of course, this does not mean, I hasten to assure your Lordships, that the landlord's views will go unheard. On the contrary, the landlord has the right, under Clause 19(7) to state his views on the suitability of each applicant as his future tenant, and there is nothing to stop him giving those views in such a way as to make his preference clear to the Tribunal. But in the view of the other place the final decision must clearly lie with the Tribunal. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 16.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has pointed out, this gives the right of choice of a tenant who claims under this Bill to the Agricultural Land Tribunal, and removes the right of choice of the landlord. In this particular case, what we are considering is a situation when there are two applicants who both say, "We have passed the eligibility test—we are a daughter, son or widow—and we have passed the suitability test, having shown that both of us can farm this farm; so we both have equal rights". We had hoped that it would have been reasonable for the landlord, who will presumably know both these people and who, by this Bill, is going to lose the right of his farm, to have been able to choose which of those two should in fact farm the farm of which he happens to be the owner. We thought that this was a reasonable thing to request, particularly, as I say, almost certainly the landlord, being on the spot, will know both the characters involved well.
However, the Government, in their wisdom, have said: No, we think that the impartial judgment of an impersonal body such as the Agricultural Land Tribunal will be better than the intimate knowledge of the landlord himself. I think that in all this Bill we have had far too much reliance on the Agricultural Land Tribunal and on other people having to solve problems which this Bill of itself creates. I think this is yet another example of how, in all the legislation that

737
we are having, we are building up tribunals, committees and other bodies of people, all of whom have got to be consulted in order to get some kind of degree of fairness; and yet, really, very often, the problem is quite a simple one. I think the Government are wrong again on this. I do not think this is such an important point as the last point. I think it merely happens to be common sense that if a landlord is going to lose the right of his farm for two generations, and if two applicants are to lay equal claim, then he should have the choice; but another place have decided that this is not to be, and we would not wish to quarrel over that.
My Lords, I come back to saying—and I think this is the last Amendment on which to say it—that I think the Government will rue the day when this Bill was introduced, because I think they will find that it will have a marked disadvantageous effect on British agriculture and will in no way help it to become efficient or to produce food in better and more efficient quantities than it is at the moment doing. This is a restricting measure and I think it is one which British agriculture will regret.
8.40 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to say a word on this. The whole success of the landlord and tenant organisation in agriculture, the whole success of the relationships which, I think, at the moment are extremely good between the landlord and tenant and between worker and landlord and tenant, as the case may be, depends on the personal interest, personal touch and personal work of the landlord. To think that a Tribunal, however admirable, is going to know more about the farm which belongs to the landlord and which the landlord is letting, and will know more about the type of person who would be going into it, seems to me not to bear any relation to fact. It is a thousand pities that one has to bring in outsiders to decide something which can so easily be decided between people who understand and know the conditions themselves, have worked those conditions and understand the characters of the persons whom they want. If there were disputes, then one can bring in outside persons or tribunals to arbitrate; but this is not what this proposal is: it is to say
738
that at no point can the landlord choose his own tenant. This is a disaster and I am sorry that the other place has seen fit to decide in this way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos.17–19.]
Leave out Clause 20.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment and proposed the following Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill:
Clause 20, page 27, line 18, leave out ("some") and insert ("a material");
line 35, leave out from ("person") to end of line 41.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I have already spoken to these Amendments. I beg formally to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed and that this House doth agree to Amendments Nos.18 and 19 proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth rot insist on its Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed and that this House doth agree to Amendments Nos.18 and 19 proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos.20 and 21.]
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Notice to quit over twenty-five years
".—(1) Save for section 16, this Part of this Act shall not apply where—

(a) on or before the commencement to of the tenancy, the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered under this section; and

(b) the tenancy commenced on or after 29th September 1976.

(2) Section 24(1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (which provides for the challenging of notices to quit by counternotices) shall not apply where notice to quit is served in respect of a tenancy to which this Part of this Act (save for section 16) does not apply by reason of subsection (1) above and at the data: of the giving of the notice to quit at least twenty-five years had expired since the commencement of the tenancy, and it is stated in the notice to quit that it is given by reason of the matter aforesaid."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would enable landlords to, exclude Part 11 of the Bill at will.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 21:
"Because it would enable landlords to exclude Part II of the Bill at will."
I must explain to the House that the Government have an open mind on the question of fixed-term tenancies, as my noble friend Lord Peart made clear in a letter which he wrote to the Country Landowners' Association on 19th August while he was still Minister of Agriculture. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary quoted from this letter in another place last week and I will repeat the passage that he read out for the benefit of your Lordships' House:
"You will of course know from the discussions at the Committee stage of the Bill in the House of Lords, the reasons why we are opposed to the inclusion of the new clause. As Lord Melchett—the Government spokesman—explained at the time, fixed-term tenancies must be examined with considerable care before any decision is taken for or against their reintroduction; and he (Lord Melchett) agreed with Lord Stanley of Alderley that this was something which would be better considered in the context of an overall review of the agricultural holdings legislation. With this possibility in mind I should be happy to look at any formula which you can suggest for allowing fixed-term tenancies without undermining the family succession scheme."
That is the end of the quotation. I hope that, in the light of Lord Peart's letter, noble Lords will be prepared not to insist on the Amendment, the effect of which, no matter what its intentions, would he radically to alter the family succession scheme. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 21.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, it did not surprise us that the other place decided not to accept this Amendment. It was, in fact, a lifeline thrown to the Government to try to help them to get out of the jam in which they have put the landlord and tenant system. By this Bill, they have run the thing into a cul de sac from which it will not he easy for them to emerge. As I said earlier, and as both my noble friends behind me have said, the landlord and tenant system has been of inestimable value. We believe that this Bill is going to ditch that system. The reason why we
740
put down this Amendment was to try to find some solution, albeit not a very good one, to permit the landlord and tenant system to continue. Far from being an intention to destroy the transfer of tenancy provisions under the Bill, the object of our Amendment was that farmers would still be able to let farms, and would be prepared to let farms, and that the incoming tenant would know that he had it for a fixed term of 25 years. I agree that such fixed-term tenancies ought to be subject to an overall review of the landlord and tenant system. But, my Lords, so ought the conditions of this Bill.
It is because the Government did not have a full-scale review before introducing this Bill that we cast this Amendment to them hoping that they would still be able to accept it and still be able to see, as a result of the Amendment, that there would be opportunities for farmers still to become tenants. But the Government have rejected it. So be it. I think the effects on agriculture will be bad.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) (No. 2) REGULATIONS 1976
8.48 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones) rose to move, That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 18th October, be approved. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is to increase the financial limits for legal aid in civil matters and for legal advice and assistance, thus making legal aid and advice somewhat more widely available. Under the Legal Aid Act 1974, this cannot be done unless the regulations are approved by Resolutions of each House of Parliament. The corresponding Scottish regulations standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McCluskey are in similar terms to the English ones, and what I say about the English regulations apply to the Scottish regulations.
However, there is one point which applies only to the English regulations, and this is that since I signed the Advice

741
and Assistance Regulations, a printers' error has resulted in the word "capital" appearing immediately in front of the word "Act" in Regulation 3 so that it refers to the "capital Act". Indeed it is a capital Act, but I do not think we need introduce this adjectival reference into the terms of the regulations. So this word should be deleted.
Since 1973, the income limits for legal aid have been revised annually to take account of the annual increases in supplementary benefits. This ensures that the availability of legal aid is not eroded by inflation. The legal aid income limits were last increased in January of this year to take account of supplementary benefit increases which came into effect in November 1975. New regulations will now increase supplementary benefits again with effect from 15th November. The regulations embody a rise of about 16.5 per cent. in the ordinary weekly rate of shortterm supplementary benefit for a single person. The Legal Aid Regulations which I now commend to your Lordships make similar increases in the income and capital limits for legal aid, advice and assistance.
There are two sets of regulations to reflect the two branches of the scheme, one for legal aid and the other for legal advice and assistance. The Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1976 raise the lower disposable income limit for legal aid (below which no contribution is payable) from £570 a year to £665 a year, and they raise the upper disposable income limit (above which legal aid is not available) from £1,790 a year to £2,085 a year. The "disposable income" is a person's net income after allowances have been made for dependants and deductions for expenses such as income tax, rates, rent and so on.
These regulations also increase the lower capital limit (below which no contribution is payable) from £250 to £300, and the upper capital limit (above which legal aid is normally not available) from £1,200 to £1,400. This is the first increase in the capital limits since December 1972 and, although I do not suggest that, at 20 per cent., the increase compensates for the inflation since then, it represents a substantial improvement in these days of economic stringency. Therefore I hope it will he welcomed by your Lordships.
The Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1976 make parallel changes to those for legal aid. They increase the upper disposable income limit for legal advice and assistance from £30 to £3.5 a week, and the disposable capital limit from £250 to £300. These regulations must be read in conjunction with a third set of regulations I have made, which are not subject to Affirmative Resolution, but which come into force at the same time as the other regulations. These raise from £16 to £20 a week the lower disposable income limit above which a person in receipt of legal advice and assistance is required to pay a contribution. They also make consequential amendments to the scale of contributions for legal advice and assistance.
My Lords, the increases made by these regulations are the minimum necessary to keep the legal aid scheme in line with inflation. We cannot at present unfortunately afford to do more, but we cannot do less if we are to maintain the scheme at its present level. I believe and hope they are wholly uncontroversial and I have no hesitation in commending them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 18th October, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
8.53 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, thy; House will wish me to thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of the proposed increases in income limits for legal aid and advice. I should like to tender to the House the apologies: of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone who is not able to take part in this debate tonight. Regarding the limits which are reviewed annually, they show only too clearly—as thy; noble and learned Lord said—the erosive effects of inflation. The noble and learned Lord did not say that these were the effects from which this country had suffered in the past two years, and the conesquences for those whose incomes have been progressively reduced in relation to purchasing power.
The Act of 1974 laid down a figure of £1,175 disposable income as a maximum

743
limit. In 1975 it was £1,790. Now in the regulations awaiting the approval of your Lordships, the maximum figure is £2,085, which is an increase of over 75 per cent. within two years. This figure, being disposable income, is of course less income tax and one or two other legitimate deductions. What we are seeing now with the high basic rate of tax of 35 per cent. is a single man with a gross income of under £3,300 a year, or just over £60 a week, who will be eligible for legal aid even if he has no dependants. With the high cost of litigation, we do not think that this is an unfair figure. Why, if income limits have been raised under Section 6, have the limits on capital been what I can only call so meagrely raised from £1,200 to £1,400? Although a person may have an income of nearly £60 a week gross, he may be refused legal aid if his disposable capital exceeds £1,400. That is not a very big figure by today's standards. Certainly if a man had to pay for his own legal aid or assistance, he would not get much for £1,400 these days. If anyone had the ill-fortune to be sued, possibly by someone entitled to legal aid, and was expected to draw on his capital, he would not be able to afford the defence which would be his right in the courts of this country.
Of course we will not object to the regulations tonight; I say that straight away. I would request the noble and learned Lord to look again at some stage at these capital figures, perhaps in the next review, to see whether a rather more generous attitude could be taken in this matter. This will affect a great number of people who need legal assistance and who will not now he able to get it. The increase of a maximum limit for eligibility for legal advice and assistance, which was raised from £24.50p, (the figure of 1974) to £35 a week, shows an increase of about 40 per cent., presumably to keep in line, as the noble and learned Lord said, with the increase in supplementary benefits which will take place on 15th November. By current standards, we entirely agree that 35 per cent. is not a very high sum; it is less than an unemployed man, married with two children, will be receiving weekly after that date.
It should be high time to see that these figures are reviewed to enable those who need free legal aid and advice to get it.
744
We do not feel that the figures as they exist will provide the necessary assistance. We are well aware that we are faced with a regrettable conclusion that the urgent necessity to cut public expenditure, coupled with unparalleled inflation, will have the effect of depriving those who most need legal aid from being eligible. However, if it is possible, it is important to note whether the rise in the income limit will have the effect of including new categories of people eligible for legal aid and advice, or whether it merely reflects the increasing number of the poor in this country who are eligible because of their low incomes in relation to the cost of living. With nearly 3 million people on supplementary benefits, it is more likely, regrettably, to be the latter conclusion.
When the regulations were introduced last year in this House, the noble and learned Lord referred to a study being made concerned with financial provisions. We had an indication of the priorities which he had in mind in June of this year. Since he said last year that the regulations had to take consideration of the study, I thought it correct to raise some of the conclusions which arose from this study. They seem to involve a change in the use of resources from those who are in desperate need of assistance—in the case of those involved in undefended divorce in particular—to those who provide the services; that is, the neighbourhood law centres.
The noble and learned Lord announced that in future undefended divorce cases would not be receiving legal aid, but that the procedures would be simplified by means of pro forma I understand that this will take place in 1977. I can only say that, coming from such a humane person as the noble and learned Lord, I could not believe that he had really taken a final decision. If he has taken that decision, I can only assume that the Government have now given us evidence that deserted wives or husbands will be totally neglected and that the Government have given up all thought of ever considering the Finer Report on OneParent Families because any such decision would put the seal on its total disappearance.
It must be said that, despite systematic efforts and a successful attempt to eliminate and devalue the family as the basis of society at the expense of the State, surely there remain millions of people

745
in this country who still care about the future of their children and about their children's well being. They want, even if their own lives are not successful, to do the best for their children and to preserve a home for them. At a time of acute emotional and financial disaster, the only person to whom one can turn is frequently the lawyer, an independent adviser who can give guidance and advice and who can represent them.
As I understand the statement of the noble and learned Lord, no legal aid certificate will be granted except by a registrar or a judge when the case comes before them. But what about the parties before then? I think the noble and learned Lord cannot be aware of the total despair of parties to a divorce when they are faced with these manifold problems before they come to court. I speak not only for deserted wives, but also for many fathers who have lost their jobs and their money trying to reach a reasonable settlement for the sake of their children before getting into the divorce court. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be able to put me right on this, but it seems to me that the withdrawal of aid is going to mean a fundamental change in policy and that the whole process of undefended divorces could be undermined. Surely these cases are defended only because the contentious matters—the children, the matrimonial home and the maintenance and all the human elements—are negotiated by solicitors and, if need be, counsel before the case comes to the court.
With all these matters, surely legal assistance is necessary. We are only too well aware, of course, of the incomes of people who are put into this position. It seems to me and to many of my noble friends that manifest injustice, great unhappiness and an increase in litigation with defended divorces will be the only result of this decision, if it is taken. Pro formas are no substitution for advice or guidance or a representative. Cases of this kind—and I should say that I was doing voluntary work for 15 years with oneparent families and therefore am myself only too well aware of the tragedies that can arise in these cases—are so often cases of emotional blackmail in a highly emotional time.
I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord will give very serious consideration
746
to these matters before coming to this serious decision. It will particularly affect married women who, in nearly all cases, come within the legal aid limits. I happened to look up the average earnings of a woman nonmanual worker, and it is around £35 a week, which is well within the scale for legal aid. One must really ask: if this is a question of priorities, have the Government got their priorities wrong? Is legal aid for criminals more important than legal aid for husbands and wives with children? What is the priority that puts criminals before families? I think it would appear that the Government have got their priorities in the wrong order.
Obviously there will continue to be a great deal of hardship or injustice, and those who will come off worst most certainly will be not only the innocent victims of litigation by those who are supported by legal aid, but also those who arc in desperate need of legal advice in the matrimonial cases to which I have referred. Having said all this, I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord will listen very carefully to these arguments and will reconsider his decision about undefended divorce cases. Apart from these points, we can see no reason why these regulations should not pass.
9.6 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am naturally grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for having Signified her approval to the improvements in the financial arrangements which are provided for in these two sets of regulations. She has extended the scope of the discussions over the field which we discussed in considerable detail in the House a few months ago when, if I may say so with great respect to her, we traversed the various matters she has raised over my proposals with regard to the extension of special procedure to undefended divorces, which will have the result of making court appearances not necessary in the bulk of undefended proceedings and therefore legal aid in court would seem to be rendered superfluous.
However, I ought to emphasise that on the important matters related to the children of the family if there is a dispute, and in regard to issues arising from financial arrangements resulting from the breakup of the marriage, legal aid will

747
continue to be available for those areas which are the really disputed areas in matrimonial differences. What I have strongly emphasised previously is that in regard to the preparation of the petition legal advice under the green form scheme will be available. Indeed, I have made it clear that when the proposals that I have made are introduced—I may say I am still in discussion over their detailed provisions and am very willing to consider the observations made by the noble Baroness tonight—and take effect, I propose to raise the financial limits in respect of legal advice to the same limits as exist with regard to legal aid. That will at least be of some assistance, but I can assure the noble Baroness that I am deeply conscious of the problems which arise. She also will know that we are facing the serious necessity of reducing public expenditure.
I was interested to note that, while the noble Baroness doffs her hat, if that is an appropriate metaphor, in the direction of economies in public expenditure, she is urging me to increase it in this field. However, we will do our best. I have indicated that from the economies which we hope to make by removing legal aid for undefended cases, I hope to be able to do two things: first, to raise the financial limits—and I agree with the anxiety which the noble Baroness has expressed about that—and, secondly, to provide more finance for law centres, which I regard as performing a very important legal and social service to the community.
With regard to the regulations which we are adopting—and I say this without any complaint that a wider range of issues has been raised—all the legal aid financial limits are under constant review and, as I have previously said in the House (and I did so in the debate on 15th June) I regard a substantial rise in the financial limits as a first priority. With regard to the question which the noble Baroness asked me, the effect of the rises which these regulations bring about is not expected to bring new sections of the population into the scheme, but here, again, I hope to do so as soon as resources permit. However, here we are up against the brutal facts of our economic situation. I greatly wish that I could do more, because I regard legal aid advice and assistance as an absolutely crucial social service, which I have urged throughout the time that I have been connected with this
748
subject, ever since I was party in another I place, with Sir Hartley Shawcross as he then was, to introducing the original scheme. However, I am grateful for the support which the noble Baroness has given to the two Motions, and I hope that the House as a whole will give them a fair wind.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) REGULATIONS 1976
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move formally.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 18th October, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE (SCOTLAND) (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) (No. 2) REGULATIONS 1976
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey)The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey) rose to move, That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 18th October. be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already explained the substance of these regulations. They are designed to have in Scotland precisely the same effect as my noble and learned friend has explained will be achieved South of the Border by the regulations which he has moved. There is no separate point, and I will not waste your Lordships' time by being repetitive. However let me express my mild surprise at the expression used by the noble Baroness in the previous discussion, when she talked about "legal aid for criminals". In Scotland—and I cannot doubt that it is the same South of the Border—legal aid is granted in criminal cases to those accused of crime. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 18th October, be approved.—(Lord McCluskey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) REGULATIONS 1976
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I formally beg to move these regulations.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 18th October, he approved.—(Lord McCluskey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTOR-CYCLE CRASH-HELMETS (RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION) BILL
9.13 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of Road Traffic Act 1972]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: This might be a convenient moment for me to say this. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, would be here charged with a message from the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to say that he wishes to apologise to your Lordships because he cannot be here tonight, and that he proposes to move his Amendments at a later stage in the proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has been informed of this, and as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, who was going to say this tonight is not here, I thought that somebody ought to say it.
Clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment: Report received.

RACE RELATIONS BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain Lords Amendments agreed to; with one other Lords Amendment agreed
750
to with Amendments; with certain other Lords Amendments disagreed to with Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill; and with the remain: rig Lords Amendments disagreed to with: Reasons for such disagreement; the said Amendments and Reasons to be printed.