Civic Government (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 02 March 1982 vol 427 cc1209-78

5.16 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 3 [Discharge of Junctions of licensing authorities]:

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 1: 1: Page 2, line 15, leave out ("3") and insert("2").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the question of the discharge of the functions of licensing authorities. To understand this, one has to go through a very long and complicated schedule—Schedule I to the Bill. It means that the licensing authority, according to the Bill, has to consider an application for a licence within three months. I have more than a feeling that many people would think that was far too long. Remember, this is not a decision but just the start of the consideration. It may well be that the very elaborate and complex procedures in the schedule about the whole business of licensing mean slowing up the more expeditious way of dealing with licensing that presently exists. I am suggesting that three months should be replaced by two months in respect of consideration of the application for a licence. I beg to move.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield)

My Lords, the House may recall that we discussed this proposal in some detail on the basis of an identical amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, moved in Committee. On that occasion I stressed that while licensing authorities should indeed be able to consider and dispose of most applications for licences well within the three-month period, it was important to remember that Clause 3 prescribed not a minimum nor a recommended period, but a maximum.

I still feel that we must allow local authorities some room for manoeuvre within which to deal with applications, and I fear that an unqualified maximum of two months for first consideration of an application might not be sufficient. It would put considerable pressure upon authorities over the summer period, when meetings may be infrequent, and it may be difficult within a two month period to carry out the prior consultation required by law and to consider the application substantively. If a two month maximum were imposed, local authorities might be tempted simply to put the matter formally before a committee before that period and then to agree, without further discussion, to adjourn the application for the time being.

I am bound to say that I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, conceded this point when we discussed the matter in Committee, and that he also agreed that power to adjourn would be necessary in certain circumstances. Given that need, I doubt whether in fact the noble Lord's amendment would speed matters up appreciably. I am in full sympathy with the principle behind the noble Lord's amendment, but, as I stressed during our previous discussion on this point, the Government have sought to strike a balance between the demands of the administrative procedures laid on local authorities and the desire of those applying for licences for quick decisions by providing not merely that applications must be considered within three months but that a decision must be reached on them without unreasonable delay. In all the circumstances I still think the clause as drafted gets it about right.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, it is a disappointing result; I had hoped that mature reflection by the Government would, as it has in other cases, lead to a change of heart. I am not going to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 [Licensing—Further provisions as to the general system]:

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 2: Page 82, line 16, leave out head (iii).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we go from page 2 to page 82, such is the way we deal with things in this strange Bill. We are now on Schedule 1, which deals with the whole question of further provisions as to the general system of licensing. It will he noted that later on I have an amendment suggesting that we forget about this schedule altogether and start again. But, turning to this amendment, I suggest we leave out paragraph (I) (c) (iii), which specifies and implies that the applicant may not be a natural person. We have had this before, natural person, and individual natural person. I do not know whether the Minister appreciates that this has caused some concern to some local authorities. Glasgow certainly suggests that it introduces the concept of a non-natural person holding a licence. It is an unsatisfactory concept.

It has always been of the essence of licensing in Scotland that the licence was granted to a particular person whom the licensing authority regarded as being fit and proper to hold the licence. In the case of a non-natural person it is difficult to see how the rule of a fit and proper person can be applied. In addition, although the provisions relating to the transfer of licences are no longer incorporated in the Bill—we had some discussion about that at the earlier stage—in the majority of cases the non-natural person will simply be a limited company, and the legal persons of a limited company exist quite separately from the owners of the company and its officers, both of whom can frequently change without affecting the status of the company itself. It can be foreseen that the concept of a non-natural person could be a loophole in the licensing system enabling what the Government objected to, the transfer of a licence taking place without it appearing to have occurred in law. It is because of this seeming change in the system of licensing in Scotland that I have put down this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Drumalbyn

My Lords, I wonder if it would be convenient for the House and the noble Earl if I referred now to my amendment which follows later on, Amendment No. 20, about a material change. It arises in this way. We start from the point from which the noble Lord himself started. His amendment deals with sub-paragraph (c) (iii). Following on that, you have paragraph 5(6), which relates to the granting of a licence in relation to an employee or agent named in "paragraph (1)(iii) above". Then we go to the question of what happens when the holder of the licence who is one of the persons mentioned—this is a rather peculiar paragraph, so perhaps I had better read it: Where a licensing authority grant a licence in respect of which an employee or agent has been named under paragraph 1(iii) above, the licence shall be granted jointly in the names of the applicant and of the employee or agent, and in such a case any reference in this Schedule or in Part I or II of this Act to the holder of a licence includes a reference to one or both of those persons, as the case may require". Then you get the case where the holder of the licence, the applicant, wants to change the employee or the agent. The question then arises whether that is or is not a material change in the application. That comes up again in paragraph 10(7), which is the amendment to which I am referring. I take it that it would be a material change, and I want to know how that is going to be conducted in relation to this. It does seem to me that it opens the question whether the licensing has to be gone over again. There is provision for a varying of the licence and it provides for procedures for appeal and so on. I should like to know what the position is. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that this is a very unsatisfactory situation. I am not certain that it has been precedented. No doubt my noble friend will be able to tell us.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, may I say by way of preliminary that it is not this provision in this schedule which enables a non-natural person to hold a licence? Therefore, even if this provision were deleted from the paragraph, it would not have the effect, for instance, of stopping a company from holding a licence; a company or indeed a partnership is a person in law. It would require a specific, and I suggest a highly undesirable, exclusion to prevent companies or partnerships or whatever from being licence-holders. In fact the provisions in this part of the schedule are based on similar provisions in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, which relate, not unnaturally, to liquor licensing. So far as I am aware, they have not created any particular problems. The reason for having the requirement in the schedule for an application from a firm or company to name the employee with day-to-day responsibility is that it enables the police to consider whether or not he is a fit person to manage or oversee the activity. It also enables the police or the fire authority to know who they should approach in the event of an emergency. Where the licensee is a named individual person, he may be contacted at his home address, which will be known to the police, if there is an emergency. If the licensee were a company or a partnership, with premises which one assumes would be quite frequently unmanned at night or at week-ends or holidays, there would be no known person whom the police could contact in the event of an emergency. Those are the reasons for drafting the sub-paragraph in this way. I suggest that they are compelling reasons.

My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn put a point to me. I appreciate that he is no doubt helping the House to consider this matter in a speedier fashion than it would if we took the amendments one by one. The sub-paragraph as drafted is sufficient to indicate that a change of name of employee or agent is a material change. The sub-paragraph talks about a change in any event, in the particulars of the application either for the grant or renewal of a licence. The amendment deals, so far as my noble friend is concerned, with a change of the person named in the licence and not of the applicant. So, in as kindly a tone as I can, I would say that his amendment, is not particularly helpful because of the way in which he has drafted it and anyway it is unnecessary because of the way in which the sub-paragraph is drafted at present. In other words, I think that the present wording adequately covers the situation and I hope that on reflection my noble friend will agree.

Lord Drumalbyn

My Lords, the intention was helpful and I am sorry if my noble friend does not find it helpful. I do not intend to press the matter but shall wait to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has to say.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I did agree to a certain extent. This is one of the further complexities that arise because of the use or the relevance of a "non-natural person" being given a licence. I do not think that the reasons are quite as compelling as the Minister of State has put forward. I think that that was a phrase thich came to his mind to try to persuade us without giving us any justification for the wilting of this compulsion of the draftsman about which he spoke.

The noble Earl suggested to his noble friend Lord Drumalbyn that his drafting had not been helpful. We would never have started on this Bill if the drafting had been helpful. Indeed, we have only to look at the 203 amendments on the Marshalled List to endorse that point. They are not all my amendments—they mainly come from the draftsman who has been given time to have another look at the matter. So let the Minister be careful about how he rejects well-meaning amendments and amendments that might really be worthwhile.

I shall not press the amendment. The noble Earl suggests that it goes back and uses the language of the 1976 licensing law of Scotland. I remember someone being Secretary of State at the time when it started on its proceedings, although I was not Secretary of State when it was finalised with very considerable changes, of which I would not have approved, particularly in relation to Sunday drinking in Scotland. However, I hope that the Government will have another look at this matter—there is still a long way to go—and see whether or not the fears of Glasgow in respect of this and the legal consequences of it, are as they suggest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 3: Page 82, line 23, at end insert ("and").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Drumalbyn moved Amendment No. 4: Page 82, line 28, after ("constable") insert (", the local weights and measures authority").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. With this amendment I should s like to speak to a number of other amendments all on the same point—namely, Amendments Nos. 7, 18, 21, 23, 25, 27 and 29. This amendment has to do with the way in which an application is handled by the licensing authority and it raises a question as to whom the application should be sent to as well as to the chief constable and the fire authorities.

Perhaps I may briefly go over what happens. Applications for the grant or renewal of licences go to the district authority or the Islands area who are the licensing authorities for their respective territories. Under Schedule 1, paragraph 2, the licensing authority sends a copy to the chief constable and the fire authorities, who may object and make representations within 14 days of receipt of the copy. The applicant is responsible for giving notice to every occupier and every person who is an owner of premises in the same building and they, too, may object or make representations. So, too, may any member of the public in the case of an application for a grant or renewal of a licence of a prescribed class—that appears in paragraph 2, sub-paragrah (6). In such a case the local authority must give public notice of an application. The licensing authority may also give public notice of applications not of a prescribed class, if they wish. In that case the public may make objections or representations.

Clearly it is right that the police and the fire services should be apprised of the application so that they may give their comments in so far as public safety and order are concerned. It seems reasonable that individual neighbours and members of the public should also be given an opportunity to protect their private and individual interests.

But what of the interests of the consumers as a class? The proper authorities to comment on the protection of consumers are surely the branches of the regional authorities and Islands authorities who are described as local weights and measures authorities, but who go under different names in different regions. They are sometimes called the consumer protection department; sometimes the trading standards department and sometimes the fair trading department. They administer various Acts of Parliament dealing with weights and measures, trades descriptions, fair trading and so forth. They are particularly well placed and qualified to give advice on applications for various types of licences because they and their staff have a day-to-day knowledge of the marketplace including knowledge of second-hand dealers, scrap metal merchants, street traders, garages and so forth. Indeed, that relates also to taxi licensing. They know who is likely to sell unsafe goods—for example, perhaps a scrap merchant selling unsafe oil heaters—or who is likely to give short weight, poor quality or to mislead consumers in one way or another. Surely the licensing authorities should send a copy of each application to the consumer protection authorities as well as to the police?

I agree that, so far as the all-purpose Islands area authorities are concerned, all that they have to do is to send a note down the corridor and perhaps they can consult their consumer protection services on the spot. But that can be drawn into the general situation here and if it needs a particular drafting adjustment that is all right because it can be made very simply. But the district authorities would, in my view, serve their inhabitants' interests better if they were required to notify the consumer protection departments of their regions. It should help them considerably if they were to have formal links with consumer protection departments. A parallel case can be found in consumer credit licensing where links have been arranged between consumer protection departments on the one hand, and the licence issuing department of the Office of Fair Trading on the other hand. There do not appear to be any administrative difficulties as regards that and I see no reason why there should be administration difficulties as between a licensing authority—that is a district authority or Islands area—and the regional authority in the form of its consumer department.

The records which the consumer departments maintain about previous convictions for unfair trading or about complaints against traders who have persistently flouted their legal obligations, have certainly helped to identify applicants for licences who would not really be suitable to hold those licences. So it seems to me that there is a strong case for writing into the schedule: the local weights and measures authority", of the regional authority as well as the police and the fire service. I do not understand why it should delay things in any way. It will have the great advantage of keeping the consumer services close to the other services involved, and I should have thought that it would have made for a better system of licensing than if it was not in the Bill. I beg to move.

5.40 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, my noble friend has been kind enough to speak to a number of amendments in his name on the schedule before us this afternoon. As he has pointed out, all these amendments seek to extend to regions, in their role as weights and measures authorities, the right to be consulted on applications for licences. There are later amendments on the Marshalled List which, similarly, seek to extend other powers of inspection and entry to the weights and measures authority.

At the outset we cannot accept any extension of the two categories which we have already identified in the schedule; namely, the police and the fire authority. Indeed, as regards the latter—the fire authority—some amendments which are in my name later on the Marshalled List restrict even that right. We believe that there is no end to the various official bodies which could claim that they should be included in the statutory consultation process.

However, the Government are most anxious that the licensing authority should not be put to more work on licensing than is absolutely necessary. In our view we have got the balance just about right. The two categories identified in the schedule are those with the major interest in public safety and public protection. But if an authority has doubts about an individual application, then, of course, it can consult the weights and measures authority, but in a non-statutory way. However, I should he loath to think that an application could be refused because of mere doubts about a trader which were expressed by the weights and measures authority and which were not supported by evidence of relevant convictions. Any relevant convictions and the evidence would be a matter for the police.

I would ask myself—I am sure that your Lordships will accompany me in this particular query—do we need the weights and measures authority to be statutorily consulted about taxi or hire car vehicle licences, boat licences, window cleaners' licences, late night caterers' licences or even places of entertainment licences? I think that in all these cases the answer must be, No. We understand the concern of my noble friend, but I would certainly emphasise that non-statutory consultation will always be possible and that the involvement of the police will ensure that proved breaches of consumer law and, indeed, many other things which were spoken of by my noble friend, can be brought to the attention of the licensing authority. I think that as we have the measure in the schedule at the moment, we should not ask for more than that.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, there is a certain amount of merit in what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has put forward because, when you take the whole spectrum of licences that are involved here, it may well be that the weights and measures authority has an interest. I am wondering whether the Government would think about it, not by making it statutory to consult, but by giving them the right in specific cases to object. I think that that would probably meet the point that the noble Lord has in mind. As the Bill stands at the moment, I do not think that they have any right to object to a licence being given to any person, and it may well be, from their own experience, that they should be able to exercise that right.

It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would like to speak on this when I move a later amendment on this particular subject. I think that this would be a way of meeting the point, without giving them an overall right—as has been given to the chief constable and to the fire authority. I think it was the Minister of State, during the Committee stage, who appreciated that there were cases where the fire authority need not be consulted, and we are changing the Bill to that effect.

Lord Drumalbyn

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, for what I think is a sound suggestion. I was a little worried about one remark that my noble friend Lord Lyell made. He said that he would not like the idea of objections being made on—and I cannot remember what he said—I think, suspicion, but at any rate without conviction.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, he said "doubts".

Lord Drumalbyn

My Lords, I do not see how that could happen because the purpose of notifying the weights and measures authority would be to enable it to make its recommendations, reservations or objections publicly, and it would have to do that. I certainly agree that it would be quite wrong to let it do it privately. Yet this is what the Government seem to be suggesting; that it should consult privately and that that should then influence the granting of the licence. I do not think that that is what the Bill intended. I am rather surprised that my noble friend said so.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, perhaps I could correct a doubt that could be in my noble friend's mind. I said—and the noble Lord, Lord Ross, seemed to agree with me—that I would be loath to think that an application could be refused by the licensing authority because of doubts about a trader expressed by the weights and measures authority which were not supported by evidence of relevant convictions. I think that that goes a long way towards meeting the point that has been expressed by my noble friend, but, in addition to the comments that I have already made, I would also stress that there is no need to give the express right to bodies—such as consumer authorities or weights and measures authorities—to object; any interested body has the right to object to the licensing authority when licences have been applied for.

Lord Drumalbyn

My Lords, and perhaps I may add, when notice has been given to the public, in which case of course the weights and measures authority and the regional authority would be treated simply as a member of the public in that regard. I should have thought that this was a strange way of going about things. I really think that my noble friend ought to look at this again, if only to see whether some means should be given of encouraging the regional authorities and the weights and measures authorities to take an interest in these proceedings.

One must remember the way in which weights and measures authorities work. In Scotland they do not bring the case to the Procurator Fiscal on every occasion. It is well known that, to a large extent, their method is to work by giving guidance to those concerned—to warning them, helping them and so forth. It may very well be that this kind of thing ought to be taken note of in some form or another at the time of the granting of licences. I do not see any objection to this. Of course, under the Fair Trading Act, there are special proceedings where it is not a question of convictions at all.

Perhaps my noble friend might have a look at that before the next stage of the Bill. It seems to me that the weights and measures authorities have a real contribution to make to this licensing business. It is worth recognising that and getting their co-operation rather than expecting them to look through public notices and saying, "Oh, we don't like that chap, and we will object to him". I shall not pursue this further now.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord appreciates that not all applications for a licence are subject to public notice.

Lord Drumalbyn

Yes, my Lords, I said in my introductory remarks that, although any application for a licence can be published if the local authority wishes it to be, it does not have to be. It is not a prescribed duty. I entirely agree with that, which makes the case greater. I am grateful to the noble Lord. He makes my case for me there. That is something worth looking at. I do not pretend that the drafting of this would be perfect in any case. I rather agree that perhaps I went rather wild in bringing in all kinds of licences, some of which are not applicable, although one or two of those mentioned could be. For example, of all the offences that the weights and measures authorities have fixed on, more important than any other perhaps is the changing of the odometer. This comes again closely to the licensing of taxi-drivers and all that range of activities. One wants to see that the public, the consumer, are going to get the best possible service through the use of licences given. It is with that in view that I moved this amendment. However, I do not press it now. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 5: Page 82, line 28, after ("and") insert (",where me activity is wholly or mainly to be carried on in premises,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 19, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 30. All these amendments arise from an undertaking which I gave in Committee to examine the possibility of limiting the duty of licensing authorities to forward all licence applications to fire authorities and to consult fire authorities on all temporary licences and on every variation and suspension of a licence.

As a result of my undertaking, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, withdrew a series of amendments which in fact qualified the duty of licensing authorities in this regard, and the Government have now tabled this particular amendment, No. 5, and the others, most of which are consequential, which limit the duty of licensing authorities to send copies of licence applications to the fire authority to cases where the activity involved is to be wholly, or mainly, carried on on premises, and a number of consequential amendments placing similar qualifications on the role of the fire authority as competent objectors to licence applications, and on the duty of the licensing authority to consult the fire authority on temporary licences and on the variations and suspension of licences already granted.

I think it was clear from the discussions in Committee that a number of noble Lords on both sides of the House thought it unnecessary to trouble the fire authorities with applications which did not relate to premises, and therefore had no significant safety interest. Indeed, we were left with my noble friend Lord Stodart wondering what the appropriate celebration might be on this, the first occasion when he had a recorded agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, so obviously something had to be done. I hope therefore that these amendments will commend themselves to the House. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I dare not speak for the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, but, speaking for myself, I am grateful that the Government have seen fit to do this. It is eminently sensible, and so long as we can be assured that there is no deprivation of "chippies" by fire around any part of Perthshire, then I shall be delighted to accord a vote of thanks to the Government in this case.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 6: Page 82, line 30, after ("mainly") insert ("to be").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment clarifies the fact that applications for grant or renewal of a licence are made in respect of activities or phases of activities to be carried out in the future, and not in respect of current activities. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 8: Page 83, line 35, leave out ("and the fire authority").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 83, line 37, at end insert— ("( ) in relation to an application in respect of a licence relating to an activity wholly or mainly to be carried on in premises, the fire authority;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 10: Page 83, line 39, after ("mainly") insert ("to be").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.57 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 11: Page 83, line 41, at end insert (", any owner or occupier of neighbouring property, and the local community council").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment, as indeed have been all amendments so far moved. It deals with a point that I suggested might be relevant to the inquiries of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. We come to who can object and make representations in respect of the applications for, or granting of, licences. First of all, for any kind of licence at all it is the chief constable and, where appropriate now, where premises are involved, the fire authority. That is for any kind of licence. Then, in relation to an application of which public notice has been given …". That is strictly laid down as those classes of licence which are prescribed by the Secretary of State, and over and above that those that the local licensing authority think should be advertised. In that case any member of the public is empowered to object.

Then we have a third category. I nearly suggested that this could be left out because the people involved in it really are members of the public. This is in relation to a licence concerning an activity wholly or mainly carried on in premises forming part of a building …". Then we have the relevant and competent objectors: any owner or occupier of other premises situated in the building". First, surely any member of the public is equally allowed to object. I am suggesting, for the avoidance of doubt, that the other people who should be allowed to be competent objectors, where it is a question of the activity carried on in premises forming part of a building, should be neighbouring proprietors—not just people who owner-occupy property in the building but those who are neighbours.

The other phrase I have is, and the local community council". They should have a locus in this. The Government are always inviting the local community councils to take a greater interest in civic matters within their areas and often the question of what is being, or is not being, granted a licence is a matter of concern to them, and they should be given a locus there.

If I am told that an amendment such as this is not necessary because members of the public, if the matter is advertised, will have the right which the amendment seeks to provide, I would point out that it may well be that such a licence will not be advertised, so that the only people with a competent locus to object will be owners or occupiers "situated in the same building". I want to widen that so that it applies to occupiers or owners of neighbouring property.

The simple reason for my proposal is to encourage people to take an interest in their areas. We set up local community councils under the 1973 Act, and already people complain that they have no power and nothing much to do. I should have thought we were here dealing with the very essence of their concern in an area and that they should be given power to object if need be. Let us remember that we have yet to debate some important proposed new clauses, including one from myself, dealing with certain establishments which may be in parts of buildings; and in respect of those I am sure people in neighbouring property, and the local community council, will be interested and would like the right to object, if they cannot be consulted in the first instance.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, there have been criticisms of the drafting of the Bill to the effect that it is both cumbersome and bureaucratic, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would probably count himself among the critics.

Lord Ross of Marnock

Never!

The Earl of Mansfield

I am heartened to hear that, my Lords. In any event, if the amendment were accepted it would result in a considerable amount of extra work for those concerned with the making, scrutiny and disposal of licence applications. Whatever the criticisms of the Bill and its procedures may be, the situation would not be helped by adding to the duties of the licensing authority, which is what the amendment would do. What it would not do would be to confer on neighbouring proprietors or community councils a right they do not already posesss. They can already make objections and representations as seem appropriate to them, and, if those objections are reasonable, there is no reason to doubt that they are taken into consideration by the licensing authority. However, the amendment would impose on licensing authorities an absolute duty to consider, through not necessarily to accept, objections or representations from those services.

One could complain that the amendment does not seek to define a "neighbouring" proprietor. How far would it extend beyond adjacent proprietors? It would apply, I suppose, only where the licence application related to a part of a building and not where the premises were detached. The amendment would impose no duty to notify neighbouring proprietors or community councils, though I believe that if the amendment really were to have any effect, that would have to be done.

The list of competent objectors in paragraph (3) seeks to identify those with an obvious and immediate interest in licence applications. It is deliberately kept short to avoid placing additional unnecessary duties on licensing authorities. There is nothing in the Bill as drafted which would prevent anyone with a legitimate interest from making objections or representations to a licensing authority about any licence application. For the variety of reasons I have given, although I appreciate the noble Lord's motivation, his amendment would not do what he seeks to do and it would certainly cause much extra work.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I accept that the amendment alone would not do what I want to do, my Lords, but when it came to the consequential changes that would need to be made I am sure I should get the help of the Scottish Office draftsmen; or, failing that, I should burn some midnight oil in order to do it. And remember, we have a long way to go with the Bill; we have Third Reading to come, and then it must go to another place and, having pointed the way, I am sure there are people there capable of dealing with the necessary consequential amendments.

I am glad that on this occasion the Minister did not use the phrase "compelling reasons"; he should forget such words because there is nothing very compelling about most of the arguments being used by Ministers about the Bill. As for defining "neighbouring", that could be done without much trouble, should it be necessary. Again, I return to my submission that a great deal of work would not be involved. After all, how many community councils will there be in a particular area in respect of a licence? There will be only one. I recollect that at an earlier point we were told that a person applying for a licence in a building must give the other people in the building an intimation of that application for a licence. From that point of view, therefore, work is placed on the applicant as well as on the licensing authority.

I am not happy about the reasons given by the Minister, but I do not propose to press the amendment at this time. Remember, it is the Government's own idea that people should take an interest in what is happening in their areas. That was one of the purposes for the establishment of community councils. If the noble Earl objects to the phrase "neighbouring proprietors", he could delete that and just insert "community councils". As a matter of fact, when this matter was put to me from Glasgow, they also included "church authorities" which, it was pointed out, may also be concerned with the kind of licences for which applications may be made. Certainly it is not only people living in a particular building who will be concerned with what may happen in that building. People in neighbouring buildings may fear that the value of their property could be considerably affected by what is licensed in the area. I hope the noble Earl and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will examine the matter further between now and the next stage of the Bill. I know that Lord Lyell will give all his weight to it—

Lord Lyell

I will?

Lord Ross of Marnock

—and I am seeking to influence him so that he comes on my side in this matter. I know how open-minded he is—and I said "open-minded"; I did not use the word "empty". I am sure he will come round to my point of view that this is a meritorious amendment, which, in the mean-time, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 12: Page 83, line 43, after ("shall") insert ("(a)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, it might be helpful if I spoke at the same time to Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16. These amendments are designed to meet my undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to restructure this sub-paragraph in such a way as to make it more readily comprehensible. It is now clear that a competent objector has two main tasks; he must both lodge his objection with the authority and intimate it to the applicant. Noble Lords may wish to note that when this sub-paragrah is next reprinted, the words from "and" on page 84 will be taken out of the indentation and will form a separate sub-clause qualifying both 3(2)(a) and 3(2)(b). This realignment should make the meanng of the sub-paragraph even clearer. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 13 to 17:

Page 83, line 44, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(i)").

Page 84, line I, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(ii)").

Page 84, line 4, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("(iii)").

Page 84, line 9, at beginning insert ("(b)").

Page 86, line 17, after ("any") insert ("such").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 13 to 17 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 19: Page 87, line 31, after first ("and") insert (",where the application relates to an activity wholly or mainly to be carried on in premises,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, through a slip of the tongue Amendment No. 17 was moved en bloc with a group of other amendments, and I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to tell him the reason for the amendment. With regard to Amendment No. 19, I have already spoken to it with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 22: Page 89, line 30, after ("and") insert (", where the licence relates to an activity wholly or mainly carried on in premises,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 24: Page 91, line 7, after ("(d)") insert ("where the licence relates to an activity wholly or mainly carried on in premises,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 26: Page 91, line 21, after ("(c)") insert ("where the licence relates to an activity wholly or mainly carried on in premises,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 28: Page 92, line 33, after ("and") insert (", where the licence relates to an activity wholly or mainly carried on in premises,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 30: Page 93, line 5, after ("or") insert (", where the licence relates to an activity wholly or mainly carried on in premises,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 31:

Page 93, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert— ("(a) the receipt of each application or (b) their final decision on each such application, cause details of such receipt or final decision to be entered in the register.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, when we discussed this paragraph in Committee, I stressed that since licence applications relate to activities which may affect the amenity, welfare and livelihood of other members of the community, the Government felt it important that access to inspect the register of applications should be free and unrestricted. Since then, we have looked again at the drafting of the paragraph, and concluded that there is an ambiguity in its drafting which might lead licensing authorities to believe that there was no need to enter details of a licence application on the register until after a final decision had been taken on it. Clearly that interpretation would severely limit the usefulness of the register, since early awareness of applications on which decisions are still pending is an important part of the public right to monitor the licensing procedure at every stage. Accordingly, the amendment redrafts part of paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 to make it clear that licence applications must be entered on the register as soon as they are received, with a separate and later entry relating to the decision taken upon them. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 32:

Page 94, line 40, at end insert— ("( ) A competent objector may appeal to the sheriff against a decision of a licensing authority under paragraph 3(5) above

1. (a) that his objection or representation was frivolous or vexatious; or
2. (b) as to the amount of expenses awarded against him.

( ) The agent of a competent objector may appeal to the sheriff against a decision of a licensing authority under paragraph 3(5) above—

1. (a) that his objection or representation was unauthorised; or
2. (b) as to the amount of expenses awarded against him.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House might recall that in Committee we had a discussion as to whether licensing authorities should have the right to dismiss objections as being frivolous, vexatious or unauthorised and then claim expenses without there being any right of appeal against their decisions, and I promised the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that I would look again at the point. I am quite sure that the paragraph will be used very rarely and the amount of expenses claimed thereby are likely to be very small. Nevertheless, there is an argument on grounds of principle for providing an appeal against a licensing authority's decision to treat an objection as frivolous or vexatious, and the amendment inserts the necessary right of appeal into paragraph 17 of the schedule, which deals generally with appeals to the sheriff against a licensing authority's decision. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6.16 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 33: Leave out Schedule 1.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I felt that it was important to give the Government an opportunity to justify the whole bureaucratic procedure in respect of licences. Remember, my Lords, that this licensing business covers everybody: window cleaners, scrap metal dealers, auctioneers, booksellers, secondhand clothing dealers—they are all there. According to this great schedule nobody yet knows how they are going to be treated. It depends very much on decisions of the Secretary of State which applications should be advertised, and even that does not end the matter; if it thinks fit, the local authority can itself discriminate and say that certain applications have to be advertised. Obviously all this will lead to very considerable delays, and that is why the minimum of three months was suggested in respect of my first amendment.

The City of Glasgow, for instance, without the help of the Scottish Office and the proposed bureaucratic procedure, has been dealing with between 5,000 and 6,000 licences a year. It is felt that there will be a great licensing machinery. One has to give some local authorities merely the scent of a new structure and it will be erected—and it will cost money. The people who will have to pay might well be the ratepayers, though the Government suggest that the whole licensing procedure will pay for itself; that is to say, it is the applicants who will pay. However, in some cases, so far as I can see, the local authorities will have to pay because they, not the applicants for the licences, will make the decision about advertising.

When I first looked at this proposal I thought it was quite a good thing, but now 1 am not so sure, because it is all so complex. No one reading the Bill can be terribly sure what will happen regarding any particular kind of licence. The Bill has had its Second Reading and the Committee stage, and now further amendments have been put down and may be passed. Yet I do not know what will happen about window cleaners, for instance; I do not know whether anyone will look after them at all, because very considerable changes have been made.

We are talking about the whole licensing procedure before we have dealt with the individual licence applicants—taxi drivers, scrap metal dealers, itinerant metal dealers, secondhand dealers, as well as window cleaners and others who may well come into it. I therefore hope I will get a vote of thanks from the Government. There are local authorities complaining about this, particularly the district of the City of Glasgow, who have probably more experience of dealing with licensing than the Scottish Office has, certainly. I am now giving the opportunity to the Government to justify the change which is being made in this respect. We have struggled along since 1892 under the old formulas—and we have not done too badly. Certainly the 1892 Act needed cleaning up and bringing up to date, but whether or not this is the best way is up to the Government to justify. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, the noble Lord objects to the schedule—otherwise, he would not have moved that it be deleted from the Bill—but what he does not say is what he would do by way of providing any alternative provisions for the licensing authorities to adopt; because what the Bill does is to set up licensing provisions (in some cases mandatory, in most cases optional) where the licensing authority have resolved that this or that activity should be licensed. So what Schedule 1 does is to set out the procedures to be followed with regard to the licensing of these various activities, and it provides for the submission of applications, for dealing with objections and representations, for the disposal of applications, for the issue of temporary licences, for the duration of licences, for the notification of changes and alterations affecting licences and for the variation and suspension of licences, and it sets out the appropriate fees for licences and appeals to the sheriff.

There are no existing provisions in current legislation for a licensing procedure in respect of the activities identified in the Bill. Therefore, the draftsman (so to speak) on the instructions of the Government had to sit down and devise one. I maintain that a standard procedure should be laid down in fairness to the applicant, the public and the police or fire authority where appropriate, and not least the licensing authority, which is charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to grant or renew a licence. So, taking the point shortly, if Schedule 1 were deleted there would be no procedure whatsoever for dealing with licences.

What the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has not said—very wisely, I think—is that he is advocating an ad hoc method of dealing with applications under these provisions. So (dare I use the word?) there are compelling reasons to have some sort of procedures to be followed, and I really think that as this Bill has pursued its way through the House these are, if not the best that can be devised then at least the best that can be devised in the current state of knowledge so far as this Bill is concerned.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, we have been considering this for (how many years is it?) 12 years. The current state of knowledge spans quite a long time. Indeed, when the Minister says that there are no procedures at the moment in respect of some of these activities for local authorities to issue licences, perhaps he will tell me exactly how the Cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh have been dealing with the question of taxis over the past decade. Let us go back probably 40 or 50 years. Of course they have powers; but in later parts of the Bill we are taking those powers away by taking away the powers that they have under private legislation or under by-laws. The question arises, having taken away powers that they presently have: Is this the best way to deal with it?

I admit that I am being destructive, but there is nothing to prevent us getting rid of Schedule 1, and when we come to the point of the changes we are going to make in the 1892 Act taking into account that that has been done. So, with all due respect, the Minister of State keeps using this phrase "compelling arguments". I do not know who they are compelling. They might compel him, but I do not think they compel very many more Members here. It is a way of dealing with it, and it seems on the face the right way; but the more we go into it in respect of the different kinds of licence, the way the Bill has been drafted we do not know yet which licences arc going to be subjected to the whole gamut of advertising, appeals, decisions following objection and then appeals to the sheriff, and so on.

There are improvements within it; there is no doubt about that. You could hardly have worked away all these years and not got some improvement. But I can tell the noble Earl that there is also a recipe for delay and for further expenses in respect of dealing with these licences which do not exist at the present time. I am sorry he did not seize the chance to trumpet abroad the tale of triumph of how the Government have wrestled with this whole question of licences and come up with something really satisfactory and important. He has not convinced me; he has not compelled me. But I doubt whether he will think about it again. I have a feeling that this is the whole question about this Bill, that we have been looking at it for so long we had better get something on the statute book, and then, later on, we will have a look and see whether it works. I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 [Rights of entry and inspection]:

Lord Drumalbyn moved Amendment No. 34: Page 2, line 27, after ("authority") insert ("or the local weights and measures authority").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I need hardly draw my noble friend's attention to the fact that I had difficulty in drafting this amendment. The point really is that there are certain functions, in pursuance of the functions conferred on the licensing authority, which can equally be exercised by the weights and measures authorities. In the exercise of certain of the licensing activities the weights and measures authorities will have normal access in the course of their business into the various premises.

What I was really trying to get at was some way of co-ordinating the work and getting co-operation between the two services. I do not for a moment suggest that the amendment I have put down would succeed in doing that. For one thing, the weights and measures authorities are mentioned only once in the paragraph; that is, Without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, an authorised officer of the licensing authority", and then I was proposing to put in "or the local weights and measures authority" before the words or the fire authority or a constable …". Then I have taken out the word "respectively" so as not to narrow down their functions too closely.

I can only put it in this way to my noble friend. If he has any sympathy at all with the purposes of this amendment, will he have a look at it to see whether he can draft an amendment in such a way as to achieve the objective of better co-ordination in the issuing of licences? I beg to move.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, my noble friend has pointed out that these amendments follow on from the group of amendments that he spoke to earlier. My noble friend has suggested that—

Lord Drumabyn

My Lords, would my noble friend forgive me? That is only partly true, if I may say so. They do not necessarily follow on. They would stand on their own. One was the question of notifying the local weights and measures authorities of applications. This is the exercising of the function and making certain that the duties which the local weights and measures authorities perform are performed in such a way as to work together with the licensing system.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, my noble friend and the House will see that in some respects—if that would please my noble friend—this group of amendments is similar to those moved, and I would say at the outset that the Government would resist any extension of the three categories of authorised person already identified by my noble friend in the clause; namely, a local authority official, the police or the fire authority. We believe these three categories are sufficient for the purposes of this clause which concerns the right of entry and inspection. If we increased the category we believe there would be no end to the various official bodies which could legitimately or otherwise claim that they should have a power of inspection and entry to premises. However, the Government are very keen that the businessman carrying on his legitimate activity should not be plagued—and this is not to strong a word—by a steady stream of callers from statutory bodies wishing to inspect premises. In our view, we have got the balance right and the three categories identified in the clause are those essential to ensuring that the licensing requirements are being adhered to. The Weights and Measures Authority, which, incidentally, is not the licensing authority but the regional authority, already has powers to enter and inspect weightng apparatus or equipment. I cannot see that it requires the wider powers suggested by this amendment.

Lord Drumalbyn

My Lords, it is not a question of seeking wider powers. It is one of co-ordinating powers which exist. If this does not appeal to my noble friend, then all I can do is to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford)

My Lords in calling Amendment No. 37, I have to point out that if this is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 38.

6.32 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 37: Page 3, line 4, leave out from ("licensed") to ("to") in line 6.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 37 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 39,44 and 141. This group of amendments arises from the discussions we had in Committee about the window cleaning licence provisions. As well as the general question of the need for a discretionary power of licensing window cleaners—on which the Government's views are unchanged—noble Lords queried the need to make special provision for production of a window cleaner's licence as provided for in Clause 45(2) and 45(4). There was also some debate as the appropriateness or otherwise of the words used in Clause 45 of requiring a window cleaner to "forthwith exhibit" his window cleaner's licence.

I have given much thought to what noble Lords have said and I recognise the strength of feelings which a number of your Lordships expressed. I cannot say that 1 wholly agree with all that was said, but, on the other hand, I recognise that the existing provisions in the local Acts, such as the Edinburgh Act, do not require special arrangements for the production of licences and I am also conscious that there are general provisions in Part I of the Bill which can be used to some effect. As is evident from these amendments, therefore, it will be seen that I have decided that on this issue I should accept the view of the majority of speakers in the debate and I propose to modify the window cleaning provisions accordingly.

The first group of amendments to Clauses 5 and 7 are, in essence, paving amendments to the substantive amendment to Clause 45. They also achieve the object which my noble friend Lord Selkirk and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, sought of substituting for references to "exhibition" of licences references to the "production of licences". Lord Airedale wrote to me saying he approved of these changes. The main amendments to Clause 45 delete subsections (2), (3) and (4) and the effect of them is that there is no special provision in Clause 45 for the production of licences.

So, window cleaners are brought into line with all the other activities in Part II and, under Clause 5 of the Bill, an authorised officer of a licensing authority or a police constable may require the production of a licence if they have reasonable grounds for believing that an individual is carrying on an activity as a window cleaner. Under Clause 5(2) the person concerned is not required to produce his licence "forthwith" as was the case with the proposals in Clause 45 in relation to the window cleaner, but is merely required to produce the licence "within a reasonable time". Thus, with these amendments, there is perhaps a slight lessening in the rigour of requirement on the window cleaners. The main point remains the same, however: if a police constable or authorised officer finds someone in suspicious circumstances who claims to be a window cleaner the constable will be entitled under Clause 5 to require production of the licence and, under Clause 7(7), failure to do so within a reasonable time thereafter could be an offence.

I bring forward these amendments with some misgivings. I did think that the previous provisions for immediate production of a licence made sense in the special circumstances of window cleaners, but I have to accept that they are not features of the existing legislation, and I am prepared to bow to what was I think the general view of the House as expressed in Committee. I therefore commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, during the earlier stage many noble Lords queried whether window cleaners should require licences at all. It came out that it was the police who, from the point of view of prevention of crime, were concerned that there should be a licence for window cleaners. Originally it was not just the chief constable or an authorised officer who could ask the window cleaner to show his licence but "any other person" with a reasonable cause for concern. What immediately jumps to the mind in the case of "any other person" is the person most concerned, the person who is having his windows cleaned. There have been many recent cases—and I read of one a fortnight ago, not in Scotland but in Engand— where a burglary took place. In recollection, the person concerned realised that some people had cleaned the windows two days before and, indeed had "cased the joint". There may therefore be some justification for the police concern.

I think that originally the provision was too elaborate in regard to why a window cleaner (apart from anybody else) should have to exhibit. The question of exhibit was, of course, nonsense. He now has to show his licence or produce it. It leaves us with the original clause very much decimated and Clause 45 consists now of only about two and a half lines. It is easier to read and understand; as to whether it makes sense, we still have time to look at it and see.

For my part, I have followed up the argument that the Government have used in regard to the need to prevent crime, against someone by some excuse getting into a house and effecting a burglary then or returning later to do so. I thought of the other tradesmen who are entitled to enter a house and casually invite householders to have this or that done. In Glasgow, the city authority felt that chimney sweeps should be involved, mainly, I suppose, in the tenement areas in Glasgow where the sweeps still insist on going inside to clean the chimneys, whereas many others do it from the outside. I think the Government did the right thing. They listened to the House. If the House is not satisfied with what the Government have done, they have time for second thoughts. I do not propose to oppose the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 39: Page 3, line 6, leave out ("exhibit") and insert ("produce").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]

Clause 7 [Offences, etc.]:

[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 43: Page 5, line 3, leave out ("premises, vehicle, vessel,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 44: Page 5, line 20, leave out ("exhibit") and insert ("produce").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 45: Page 5, line 26, leave out ("more") and insert ("both").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 as well as moving Amendment No. 45. As presently drafted, Clause 7(8)(c) empowers a court which has convicted a licence holder of an offence under Clause 7 to disqualify his premises from use for the purpose of the same kind of licence for a period not exceeding five years. This provision derives from Section 67 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, but on further consideration we feel it to be unnecessary in respect of the types of premises licensed under this Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, if this was done for the purpose of clarity, may I suggest that the Government have another look at this. It is far from clear. It is confusing to find the words "an order" will be on line 26 and also on line 27. It could be better phrased and far better drafted than it is. As to the sense of it, I do not disagree with that.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, it is not a drafting amendment. The purpose of these amendments was to remove a provision which we do not think is justified in this Bill. I shall certainly have a look at the drafting.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, if I may just draw the noble Earl's attention to how it reads now—I presume he has done this—it says: in addition to any other penalty which the court may impose, make an order in accordance with both of the following paragraphs, that is to say an order". and so it goes on. You have the words "an order" twice within a line and a half. It does not make for clarity at all. If it is not drafting—and I agree with him what is left out in paragraph (c) is not drafting—then there is scope now for proper drafting.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 46: Page 5, line 27, after ("say") insert ("an order").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 47: Page 5, line 31, leave out paragraph (c).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 48: Page 5, line 41, leave out ("or (6)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I could speak to Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 together. These amendments have the effect of deleting the shared liability of joint licence holders for offences under Clause 7(6). The offences covered by subsection (6) include refusal to permit the entry of an authorised officer or constable; obstruction; refusal to permit inspection of plant or stock in trade; and failure to produce a licence. All arc individual acts committed on a single occasion by a particular individual, and it now seems to us unjust that joint liability for them should automatically attach to the joint licence holder in his or her absence.

Joint liability is, however, retained for offences of breach of licence conditions under Clause 7(2), since such offences are much more likely to represent a continuous state of affairs. Offences under Clause 7(1) clearly cannot be committed by an applicant for a licence, since before a licence is granted there are no licence conditions to violate: accordingly, reference to the liability of a joint applicant is also deleted by these amendments from this subsection. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 49: Page 5, line 43, leave out ("applicant or").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 [Application of sections 10 to 29, 40 to 42, and 44 to 46]:

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 50: Page 6, line 20, leave out ("10") and insert ("23").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 50 we can also take Amendments Nos. 51 and 57. They relate more or less to the same point. Amendments Nos. 51 and 57 are pretty well consequential or necessary to cleaning up if we are going to accept Amendment No. 50, as I hope the House is. This particular clause deals with the licensing and regulation of particular activities. There are only certain licences in respect of which it is made mandatory within the Bill. Other aspects of licensing follow from a resolution passed by the licensing authority. The changes that I make here—I suggest Section 23 go 29 for Sections 10 to 29—will mean that the licensing of taxis and hire cars will now, if accepted, become compulsory, taken out of the optional licensing part of the Bill into the mandatory one.

Time and again the Government have told us how many of the licensing authorities presently license taxis and it is pretty well the whole lot of them. When I consider the licensing that is going to take place within this, one of the most important aspects is the licensing of taxis. What I am suggesting is that we make the licensing of taxis mandatory, not subject to a resolution passed by the council. If the figures given by the Government are correct, then it virtually is mandatory; but why not make it so? It is important from the point of view of what we have on the question of licensing of taxis. There is the fitness of the actual vehicle and the fitness of the driver. It does not matter which part of Scotland one is in, one wants the same high standards and powers given to the district council to enforce those high standards, many of which will be laid down by the Secretary of State as is later on in the Bill. That is the substance of the amendment: to take the licensing of taxis and hire cars out of the optional part of the Bill and put into the mandatory part. I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, I should explain before I put Amendment No. 50 that, as the noble Lord has spoken to Amendment No. 57 as well, if that is agreed to in due course, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 58.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, the effect of his amendment would be that not only taxi but also hire car licensing would be mandatory. He does not produce much in the way of arguments—

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, compelling arguments.

The Earl of Mansfield

Arguments at all, my Lords, I would say, as to why this form of licensing should be mandatory except in respect of the condition of the taxi and possibly of the driver. I concede that licensing is highly desirable, at least in the urban areas, and there are at present a number of anomalies where district councils such as Eastwood do not license taxis or hire cars. This then produces a problem about unlicensed "pirates", and that disturbs the nearby licensed trade.

I think it follows from the discussions we have had with the convention that most authorities will use the new powers to license taxis and hire cars, but in remote rural areas where no licensing exists at present I think it is difficult to argue that it should, and indeed must, in the future. I pray in aid the recommendation of the working party that taxi licensing should not be universal. I suppose it could be argued that because some authorities in the Central Belt do not now license taxis it means they will not necessarily do so in the future; but from what I have been able to glean I think the real reason why some of those authorities in the Central Belt have not so far adopted licensing is that they have been waiting for these provisions and powers to be given to them and they have waited until the enactment of this Bill. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that when it comes to discussing the details of the legislation with the convention, and in the circular which will no doubt be issued in the normal way after enactment, we shall want to make it clear that it is our view, in the light of police comments, that in the Central Belt and around urban areas it is desirable that local authorities consult about ensuring a uniform application of licensing provisions. But the fact of the matter is that at the moment 26 out of 56 authorities do not license taxis—I have the various lists here—and, really, if authorities such as Sutherland, Tweeddale or Kincardine manage to get along well enough without taxi licensing and without creating anomalies in adjacent areas, I do not think it is right for us to impose licensing upon them. For that reason I am unable to accept the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I hope that the noble Minister will reconsider this. He said that 26 of the 56 authorities did not license taxis, and presumably hire cars as well. He argued that this should only apply in urban areas—

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I have not got the exact figures on hire cars, but I believe that 30 out of 56 authorities do not license them.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, that assists my argument as much as the original reply. This would appear to be a case where, frankly, the argument in favour of my noble friend's amendment is a question of the safeguarding of the public. We are not looking at the immediate position but at something for the future. The whole provisions are now to be changed because my noble friend's amendment to delete Schedule 1 has been withdrawn, and the new provisions for licensing are all laid down in Schedule 1. This would appear to have been an opportunity to have a careful look at the licensing of taxis and hire cars. In fact, though this may be irrelevant, there may well be a case throughout the whole of the United Kingdom to have completely separate provisions for hire cars and taxis, and not in a Bill of this kind, because it is such an important provision and deals with the safety of the public. It is not something that is being argued for the sake of the taxi operator or the driver. It would ensure the proper condition of the vehicle and also of the driver, because he would have to be licensed as well.

We are talking about these new conditions and also, with regard to taxis, it will affect the question of taxi fares, which is very important. There appears to be no reason why this should not be mandatory. If any area has no taxis or hire cars then they need not worry about it, but surely it ought to be mandatory, so that wherever taxis or hire cars are in operation there can be a view-point for the whole of Scotland to safeguard the interests of the public.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, I do not think we have actually heard any arguments which would lead us to believe that in the remoter areas such as Sutherland a great deal of harm is being done by not licensing taxis. In fact, a great service is being done in some of these remoter areas by some of the smaller and perhaps irregular taxi firms—people who are known non-drinkers—who turn out on a Saturday night to take people home, and they are doing a service. They are making quite sure that people are no, Lempted to climb into their own cars and go around to their own danger and to the danger of their neighbours.

I am sure that in some of the remoter areas such as Sutherland there are some people who use their own car as the local hire car, but they could not be inclined to turn their own car into a taxi in the true sense of the word, so that they need not display whatever notice might be demanded by a licensing authority. Therefore, you might be in danger of removing a service which is actually affording safety to the public, in an effort to afford greater safety where no danger actually exists; and so in this matter I would support the Government's view.

Lord Drumalbyn

My Lords, I am myself in sympathy with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I think the House might well listen to him because he comes from a remote area, though perhaps not one as remote as Sutherland. In trying to reach a decision on this, I wonder whether my noble friend could indicate to us at what point he will discuss with the local authorities whether this or that district will have a taxi licensing system. Will it be before the Bill goes to another place, after the Bill has become law or what? We are to some extent legislating with at least one eye covered, if not both eyes covered, in this case. It seems to me that probably there is a strong argument for exemption from taxi licensing in certain areas. I wonder whether this will be the better way to deal with it rather than to impose on the mass of local authorities—the 56 or whatever number it is—apart from certain remoter areas, the duty to have a licensing system. It is very difficult to legislate in the kind of vague atmosphere that we are being asked to legislate in over this particular case.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, It was disappointing to hear from the Minister—

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I could perhaps answer my noble friend's point before the noble Lord, Lord Ross, decides what he will do about his amendment. I want to say to my noble friend that we are continuously being berated for not allowing the democratically elected local authorities to get on with their functions and to do their best by the local citizenry. But this is precisely what we are doing in this particular instance. May I remind the House that there are only two areas where mandatory licensing is going to apply. Those are in respect of public entertainment provisions and metal dealing—two very diffierent activities. The first relates simply and solely to public safety, and the second to crime prevention. In all other areas of licensing, it will be for the local authority to decide what is best for its own area. So if my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn says that this is vague legislation, I must say that it is vague only because it will give local authorities freedom to do what is right in their judgement.

Where is the overwhelming need to impose on all local authorities a system of licensing taxis? I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said on the subject, but I do not think that he produced any compelling reasons either for the prevention of crime, or for safety considerations, as to why all taxis and hire cars in Scotland need to be licensed. There are various provisions, such as the construction and use regulations, and also those which relate to what I might call elderly cars, which deal with safety. But there is certainly no reason that I have heard tonight why this general rule, so far as the Bill is concerned, should be breached in the case of taxis and hire cars.

I very much agreed with what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said. Very different considerations apply in country areas, particularly in remoter areas, from what obtain in the central belt. I cannot believe that it will help the citizenry of Thurso town, if they are deprived of their very welcome hire cars on Saturday nights when they happen to be fu', merely because of a bureaucratic and unwelcome decision on the part of central Government. I have to say that I rely on what my noble friends have said, and I am really quite without sympathy so far as this provision is concerned, which I suspect seeks to impose uniformity where none is needed.

May I just say this to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn? A circular will be issued, in the way that circulars are, on enactment of the Bill-in fact, very soon after it becomes an Act. Generally speaking, we shall make plain in what kind of area it is desirable that taxis and hire cars should be licensed, and the kind of consideration that licensing authorities should give to the matter in their own areas. There will certainly be no diktat about this and I do not think it is desirable that there should be. I am told that even in England and Wales, where comparisons may be made—not least, by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—only about 80 per cent. of district councils license taxis and not all of them throughout their areas. This is information provided by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, with whom we have been having a good deal of consultation while this Bill has been going through your Lordships' House.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, the importance of this is emphasised by the fact that we have 13 clauses, from Clause 10 to Clause 22, dealing with taxis. There is no question of leaving local authorities to decide for themselves. All these clauses are there and they will all become law. Apart from that, within these clauses the Secretary of State takes further powers in relation to the type of vehicle and so on.

I am the last to suggest that it is the same in Glasgow as it is in Wick, Sutherland or anywhere else. But what guarantee is there that we will get the necessary safety regulations and control, in respect of taxis in all the urban areas where they are really needed? There might be a case—it went through my mind as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, spoke—for an opting-out procedure. But we can only even think of that if the Minister of State will tell us those district authorities which presently do not license taxis.

Let us not underestimate the importance of the service that is done in the rural areas, but because that service is done it should be a safe service. It should not be exorbitant. The people who use it are not necessarily local people. They may well be in the area as tourists and, in order to get to a certain point, they have to avail themselves of whatever taxi service there is. I do not know whether such people complain, or who receives their complaints, but I should be very surprised indeed if they did not complain about the condition of the cars and about the charges.

If we did make it mandatory, I do not think that there would necessarily be a tremendous burden on the local authority. After all, if there are few people wanting to run a taxi service, there will not be many applications. So far as I can see, there will be very little difficulty in the rural areas about that. The difficulty in the rural areas is in getting someone to give any kind of service at all. I ask the noble Earl: please do not tell us what they do in England and Wales. We are legislating here in a very different way from England and Wales. There may be some things in respect of which we can learn. But I should be quite happy with 80 per cent. coverage of the country, which the noble Earl said there is in England and Wales.

It was not a very good or a very compelling argument, and it is crystal clear in my mind that the Government are not very sure of what they are doing here. If there is one thing that should be mandatory, it is something which involves public safety. The noble Earl may as well use the same argument in respect of itinerant metal dealers in the North of Scotland or the Western Isles, but they have to be licensed. And how many scrap metal dealers are there in Sutherland who also have to be licensed—all one of them! So the argument which the noble Earl used was not very convincing.

I shall not pursue this amendment at the present time, but I should like the noble Earl to give us the information that is necessary to proceed further on the basis of opting-out, and to give us a list of those district authorities which presently do not license taxis and hire cars. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Denham

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Ross, disagrees, I hope he will say so, but I think that this is probably a convenient breaking point for a dinner adjournment.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I hoped to get to Amendment No. 61, but at the moment it does not seem likely

Lord Denham

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would like to go on for a few more amendments—

Lord Ross of Marnock

No.

Lord Denham

My Lords, in moving that consideration on Report be now adjourned, I should like to suggest that the House be adjourned until 10 minutes to eight. My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report now be adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.9 to 7.50 p.m.]

Bill further considered on Report.

[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 52: Page 6, line 35, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections (4) and (5) below,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, perhaps we could discuss Amendments Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58 and 59 together. The House may recall that during Committee discussion of Clause 23, which relates to second-hand dealers' licences, concern was expressed that, by resolving in general terms to license second-hand dealers, licensing authorities might inadvertently catch classes of dealer—for example, second-hand booksellers—whom they would not have opted to license specifically. I therefore undertook to examine ways of limiting the right of licensing authorities to make blanket resolutions in respect of second-hand dealers. This amendment therefore qualifies the rights of licensing authorities resolving to license second-hand dealers by providing that a resolution made in relation to second-hand dealing must specify the particular class or classes of dealer whom it is intended to bring within the scope of licensing.

This is a modest but I think helpful amendment which will compel a licensing authority to think through in detail the intended scope of second-hand dealer licensing before any resolution in respect of that activity is made. For structural consistency, the analogous provision in respect of taxi and hire car licensing, which is currently paragraphed as part of Clause 9(3), is now separately paragraphed as new subsection (4), and the general provisions of Clause 9 are specifically made subject to the provisos in new subsections (4) and (5).

The amendments to Clause 9(3)(i), (ii) and (iii) are also consequential upon the wording of new subsection (5). On reflection, it was decided that reference to "a case" of an activity tended to suggest specification of an individual trader. The intention is not, however, to enable resolutions to be made in respect of an individual trader, or traders, but in respect of any particular type or types of second-hand dealing-in other words, second-hand bookselling, car dealing and so on. Accordingly, the reference in new subsection (5) is to the particular class or classes of that activity to be licensed, since "class" appeared to meet our intention here more accurately than "case". In the interests of consistency, "class" or "classes" have also been substituted for "case" or "cases" wherever these words occur in paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of subsection (3) of Clause 9. Finally, Amendment No. 58 amends the reference to "resolution" in new subsection (4) to make it clear that it relates to the licensing or regulation of the activities in question. This makes the wording here consistent with the fuller version in new subsection (5). I beg to move.

Lord Ross or Marnock

My Lords, this series of amendments hinges upon what the Government are now prepared to do in respect of Amendment No. 59. It is not only helpful. It is sensible. It means that the Government are handing over to local authorities a responsible duty which they would not take on themselves. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell me whether the Government will give some guidance to the licensing authorities, otherwise they may well exempt some classes in one district authority and do the very opposite somewhere else. It affects amendments I have put down relating to second-hand dealers in which I suggest that booksellers and auctioneers ought to be left out. This is a far better way of dealing with it, but let the Government not underestimate the difficulty which they are now inflicting upon the district licensing authorities. However, this is sensible and helpful, and I am very glad that the Government appreciate exactly the difficulties which their generalisation of this particular activity has got them into. Nevertheless, I congratulate them on at least this step forward.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 53 to 55:

Page 6, line 41, leave out ("cases") and insert ("classes").

Page 7, line 1, leave out ("cases") and insert ("classes").

Page 7, line 2, leave out ("case or cases") and insert ("class or classes").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 56: Page 7, line 3, leave out ("but the") and insert ("( ) A").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 58: Page 7, line 4, after ("for") insert ("the licensing and regulation of").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 59:

Page 7, line 8, at end insert— ("( ) A resolution made under this section by the licensing authority relating to the activity provision for the licensing and regulation of which is made in sections 23 to 29 of this Act (that is to say the carrying on of business as a second-hand dealer) shall specify the particular class or classes of that activity which shall thereby fall to be licensed and regulated.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 60: Page 7, line 35, leave out ("may be submitted to the authority") and insert ("will be considered by the authority after the expiry of").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the short delay for which this clause provides between the making of a resolution and the consideration of licence applications by the licensing authority is designed to ensure that licensing authorities first considering applications should have a reasonable idea of how many applications there are likely to be and how many will be distributed geographically over their area. It emerged during the Committee stage discussion on this clause that the difference in the wording between Clause 9(6)(b) (ii) and Clause 9(8) created some uncertainty as to whether the overall effect of the clause was to ban the submission of applications for one month following the resolution or not. To place the matter beyond doubt, we have amended to bring the wording of Clause 9(6)(b) (ii) into line with that in Clause 9(8). It should therefore now be clear that there is no time ban on the submission of applications. As soon as a trader or potential trader reads of the local authority resolution, therefore, he will be free to submit an application for a licence, but the licensing authority will not begin to consider applications received until one month after the making of the resolution has elapsed so that applicants generally will have reasonable time to prepare their case. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I welcome this amendment. I welcome even more the words used by the noble Earl the Minister in putting it forward. He referred to the geographical spread, the numbers in respect of licences and the extent to which local authorities are to make up their mind about that particular point. I do so not because I am all that interested in this amendment but because I am very interested in the next. Nevertheless, I congratulate the Minister for having given me a substantial argument in respect of my next amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 [Taxi and hire car licences]:

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 61: Page 8, line 19, after ("grant") insert ("a taxi licence if they are satisfied that a sufficient number of taxis have already been licensed").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are now on Clause 10, which deals with the licensing of taxis and hire cars. One of the things I was concerned about at Committee, and I believe that I had some support from behind me if nowhere else, was that it was important that among the powers of the local licensing authority—that is, the district council—was the power that, in considering the number of licences for taxis, it should have the right to limit licences or not grant licences beyond a certain number of taxis. This was disputed by the Government on a matter of principle. On a matter of practicality and what would happen if there was no limit on the number of taxis, you would get people providing a service when it suited them and creaming off trade at a particular time or event, but otherwise providing no real service to the general public. It is desirable that the local authority should have the power of limitation. I have put down Amendment No. 61 so that Clause 10(2) might read: A licensing authority shall not grant a taxi licence if they are satisfied that a sufficient number of taxis have already been licensed". We shall get a dependable taxi service if we have a sufficient number but not if we have a superfluity to the extent that it drives people out of business or makes them work for considerably extended hours, which might lead to a loss of safety in respect of the drivers themselves. That is purely and simply the reason for the amendment: it is the principle of the matter. Glasgow and other local authorities which license taxis at the moment place the greatest importance on this—that they should be able to limit the numbers. From that point of view, I beg to move.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend's amendment, which is in line with the principles of an amendment which I proposed at Committee stage. At Committee stage the Minister said that he would consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Consumer Council in Scotland, and we await with great interest the results of those consultations. It has been said to me that the Minister's attitude is that of an agnostic awaiting conversion, and I hope it may be possible to achieve that conversion tonight.

The Minister said there have been many discussions with the National Federation of Taxicab Operators but that they had advanced arguments but no real facts. I do not want to go over all the points made at Committee stage, but in the time that this Bill has been going through your Lordships' House the Federation has compiled a report on the need to control the operating numbers of the hackney carriages industry, dated February of this year. This report has been compiled during our consideration of the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill, and therefore it is right up to date. It may be that the Minister has not seen this because it was only agreed at an executive meeting of the federation last Thursday, and the copy I have has a number of handwritten amendments made to it. I will not go through all the points in the report, but it makes a very effective case for all the different reasons why the amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock should be accepted. I hope that the Minister will obtain a copy of the report in due course and will give it his fullest consideration—I am certain that he will.

In dealing with an earlier amendment the Minister cited the support of the working party for his rejection of the amendment, but in this case we can quote the support of the working party in favour of this particular amendment, because they were heartily in favour of a limitation on numbers to be exercised by the licensing body. The removal of control of numbers, or the failure to control numbers, would in my view remove a very important aspect of the licensing authority's control of this system. Merely having control by the market will mean to a great extent that the position of taxi operators will be dominated by the peak periods, which are in the main the evenings and week-ends, and not by general public demand during the daytime, which is when many members of the public want taxis. The public would be very upset if full-time operators were driven out of business and they were unable to get taxis during the daytime.

I said earlier that we shall be interested to learn about the consultations with COSLA, but I have the report of a working party set up by the Society of Directors of Administration of Scotland, arising from a letter from COSLA which was sent to them on 14th January, not a long time ago. The society has accepted the report of its working party, which said that the application would be refused only if the applicant was not a fit and proper person, et cetera, but, additionally, providing as a ground of refusal that the grant would result in an over-provision, with any refusal on that or any other ground". They say that the arguments put forward here will be the basis of the views which COSLA will present in connection with this Bill. Therefore, the society is heartily in favour of the principles of this Bill.

In conclusion, I would comment again that failure to have this limitation will mean bringing in an excess number of persons who may have been driving all through the day and who come to do part-time work in the evening ands at week-ends. That is not to say that we should not have part-time people to supplement the numbers during peak periods, but failure to control the number will inevitably mean that the full-time man who has to make a living out of a certain number of hours of work (and one cannot work 14 hours a day when one is driving a taxi) could be driven out of business. The result could be either that or a run-down in the standards of vehicles because the overheads are so high. The whole point of this amendment is to preserve not merely the position of the taxi operator and taxi driver but also the interests of the public, and to ensure that standards are upheld and that taxis will be available during off-peak periods as well as peak periods.

Lord Wilson of Langside

My Lords, in the light of the arguments which have been presented by the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Underhill, I am sure that the noble Earl, with his usual careful consideration of these matters, will find it very difficult to resist this amendment. I express the hope that he will accept it.

Lord Ferrier

My Lords, I recognise the importance of this, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, said, to places such as Glasgow. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lord Mansfield has to say in reply, because in rural areas where taxi hiring is becoming increasingly important, this places very great power in the hands of local authorities to limit the availability of taxis to people living in those areas. I am not yet prepared to make up my mind one way or the other on the amendment, but I look forward to hearing what the noble Earl has to say. This is a point to which the House should give serious consideration.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, I am not quite sure that this amendment is in the right place or to the right clause. What it seeks to limit is the taxi driver and not the vehicle. The argument has been that the taxi driver may have been working long hours before turning out at night to drive a taxi, but this particular clause deals only with vehicles. There is no control in this particular clause over the driver. It is the later clause that deals with the question of the driver. I feel that this amendment may mean the right thing; there may be the wish to make sure that the driver is fit and capable of driving his taxi, but it really should be in a different clause. Here we are dealing with whether the vehicle is fit to be driven.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, your Lordships may recall that we had a very full debate in Committee on this subject on 15th December last. I expressed the view, which I think was generally accepted by the Committee, that geenrally speaking it is not really the duty of licensing authorities to impose quantitative restrictions on licences in restraint of trade unless there arc very good and valid reasons for them so doing, and above all that they should not by the restriction of licences create value where none should be created. That part of the argument really goes to the transferability of licences rather than the actual licensing of the vehicle, and we have not at this stage of the Bill's passage got an amendment down for that. Whether that is for a reason I know not, but I have my suspicions.

At the Committee stage I expressed the Government's reservation and I gave various undertakings, particularly to consult with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, to consult with the Scottish Consumer Council. My officials immediately after the debate wrote to the convention seeking its views in the light of the debate in the House, and we also asked the convention for up-to-date information on its practices. The convention has only just replied, in the sense that the letter was received only this morning, and of course has not yet been analysed in full. What it does confirm is that the practice, so far as licensing and limitation of numbers is concerned, varies very much from authority to authority.

As we have heard in a previous debate, some authorities have no licensing at all and therefore limitation does not come into it, some have licensing without limitation, and others, particularly in the cities, have both licensing and limitation. Opinion of the authorities was by no means unanimous and indeed fewer than half of them replied. But the convention view—I am being fair about this—is that quantitative restrictions are desirable and should be provided for, although the convention recognised that they were not able to give factual evidence that the service to the public had suffered where there was no limitation on taxi numbers. I think that is a very important point. At the last stage of this Bill I invited the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to reflect upon that point and if possible to come forward with evidence.

I also undertook to consult the Scottish Consumer Council and they gave me a quick and positive reply. From their knowledge of the situation in Scotland, and wider studies of the use of taxis and hire cars in England carried out by the National Consumer Council, the director of the Scottish Consumer Council told me quite unequivocally that they regard the present arrangements for quantitative restrictions as operating against the public interest. They strongly pressed for its removal on the ground that it would be more likely to provide a wider range of choice and availability of taxis and hire cars than available for the travelling public at present. I recognise that that is just one point of view, but I am bound to say that this argument strikes a very sympathetic chord so far as the Government are concerned.

Then, as I have mentioned before, the Transport Road Research Laboratory have been studying the general question of use of taxis and hire cars in England and Wales. By way of partial summary of their conclusions, I can say that at the very least they showed that there is no evidence that quantitative restriction operates to the public advantage, although about two-thirds of English authorities practice it. So there we have the situation as it stands.

Moreover, it is by no means conclusive that such restrictions necessarily always protect the taxi trade. As noble Lords may know, in England although local authorities at present have a discretionary power to restrict the number of taxi licences they have no such power in relation to hire car licences. The limited statistical evidence available is that where the number of taxis has been restricted by a local authority there is almost invariably an increase in the number of hire cars operating.

At an earlier stage the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said that taxis and hire cars are completely separate kinds of vehicles operating in watertight and insulated sectors one from the other. But the evidence of the researchers is that there is a very wide degree of overlap and competition between hire cars and taxis. Indeed, in England outside London the evidence is that taxis operate very much like hire cars; they get a high proportion of their fares not from plying for hire, by being flagged down in the street or standing in a cab rank, but rather by telephone bookings. So where taxi numbers are fixed at a level below what the market demands hire cars have taken up the slack. More tellingly, there is no evidence that the absence of quantitative control in England over hire cars has resulted in the kind of anarchy and confusion for hire cars which has been forecast in some circles if quantitative restrictions are removed on the number of taxis in those areas where such restrictions operate. I need hardly remind noble Lords that no quantitative restrictions exist at present for London taxis.

In Scotland the evidence I have received from the Convention shows that many authorities do not have quantitative controls on hire cars while they do retain them for taxis. Such major authorities as Glasgow, Inverclyde and Hamilton do not exercise quantitative restriction on hire cars so that the taxi trade in these areas is exposed to competition if not directly from taxis certainly from hire cars. Yet despite this competition applicants are keen to enter the taxi trade.

So the evidence from such statistical sources as are available—and I am not going to pretend that it is comprehensive—does, I suggest, tend to support the Government's view that the abolition of quantitative restrictions would benefit the public and would not bring any dire consequences. As I have said, such abolition would be very much in keeping with the Government's philosophy that on matters such as this the best regulator of the trade is the balance between supply and demand and not externally fixed quotas. We are not talking here about licensing and controlling activities such as the consumption of alcohol which in excess might be regarded as having potentially adverse consequences for public health and safety. Matters of safety can be dealt with not by controlling the number of taxis which operate but rather by ensuring proper standards of driver experience and vehicle construction and maintenance.

I can well understand the fears of the trade, but I do not think they have the right to be frightened by the competition which every other small trader has to face. So I repeat that the onus of proof lies with those seeking to defend the status quo and so far they have not done so. I have not said anything about transferability, although the two subjects really go hand in hand. I do not intend to unless I am invited to. What I can say for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Ross—because I do not know how his mind is running on this particular matter—is that the Government's mind is still open.

My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State in another place, who is responsible for these matters at the Scottish Office, has received a request from the National Federation of Taxi Operators to meet him to discuss the implications of the Bill. I understand that they will produce this document which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has been favoured with the sight of but not I. I have no doubt that my honourable friend will consider whatever is put to him by the federation very carefully indeed. But I should be misleading the House if I did not say that at present, on the evidence which we have, I think it is improbable that the Government will change their mind. However, certainly so far as your Lordships' House is concerned, for all the reasons that I have given—and I am conscious that I have taken a certain amount of time in giving them, but this is an important subject—I am not disposed to accept this amendment tonight.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I am not at all surprised by that because, when we discussed this matter on the last occasion, the Government made the point of principle that competition in this field was a good thing, that we should not worry at all about what we were told by the working party, and that it was a long time since the working party actually reported. The working party were conscious of the need, and said so, to limit the number of taxis licensed, because they were conscious of the need to ensure a working wage for those who were in the trade. I do not know the extent to which the Minister was misled by the noble Viscount. He said that this was not the place to do it. You can have as many drivers as you like, but they can only drive a taxi if that taxi is licensed. In other words, the number of taxis does not necessarily bear any relation at all to the number of drivers.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, with the greatest respect I should like to interrupt at this point. You cannot have as many drivers as you like, because they are limited by Clause 13, where it says that there have to be taxi and hire car driving licences. Therefore, the number of drivers that you have is limited by that clause. It seems to me that that is the clause in which one should limit the drivers.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, many a person owns a driving licence who does not drive a car. You first have to have a car. The number of taxis on the road is determined not by the number of drivers, but by the number of taxis that are licensed. It is the number of taxis that are licensed that we are concerned with at present. So this is the right place to do it.

I am very disappointed indeed in the plea about the principle that the public will benefit. I am not at all surprised at the advice that was received from the consumers' society or whatever it was called. We have had quite a few comments from them and I have noticed a particular slant in them all. The point is that we are talking about long-term benefit. Surely long-term benefit means an adequate number of taxis, good taxis and well-driven taxis. There may be a short-term benefit by having a free-for-all, but I can remember the days when buses started up and were virtually unlicensed and there were about half a dozen running between here and Glasgow. They ran each other off the road until it reached a point when there were only one or two. So there was benefit in the short term for the consumer but not in the long term for the consumer or for those who entered that particular field.

From the point of view of security for the consumer and of getting a reliable service, the working party who went into this matter in the first instance were correct. I do not think that it is right to do as the Government say. The noble Lord keeps on telling us that we want to leave things to the judgment of the local authorities. Surely this is a matter as regards which the local authorities can be trusted and, indeed, the larger local authorities have full experience of this matter. We need not worry about the rural areas about which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, was concerned. If the noble Lord had been here earlier he would have discovered that many of the rural areas have no licensing. We must remember that this is not mandatory. The suggestion that I put forward was turned down. This is something that the local authorities may not apply and a considerable number of them do not apply and, so far as I know from the Minister of State and the noble Viscount below the gangway, they do not want it to apply. So let us leave that out. But, as regards the urban areas where there is licensing at present and quantitative restriction, they want it to continue and I think it desirable that it should do so.

Mention has been made of a meeting that is going to take place. I do not know what that meeting will decide, but already the noble Earl has been given some indication of what will be put forward, and he does not like it. He has already made up his mind on that one. Therefore I am sorry, but in this case I do not think that I can withdraw the amendment and we must go to a Division.

8.26 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 61) shall be agreed to?

63.

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents,

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Bishopston, L.	Loudoun, C.
Blease, L.	Northfield, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Peart, L.
Chitnis, L.	Phillips, B.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Collison, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]
Elystan-Morgan, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Ross of Marnock, L.
Irving of Dartford, L.	Stedman, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Stone, L.
John-Mackie, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Kinloss, Ly.	Underhill, L.
Kirkhill, L.	Walston, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe B. [Teller]	Wells-Pestell, L.
	Wilson of Langside, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Abercorn, D.	Kilmany, L.
Abinger, L.	Lane-Fox, B.
Ailesbury, M.	Limerick, E.
Airey of Abingdon, B.	Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Auckland, L.	Long, V.
Avon, E.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Bellwin, L.	Lyell, L.
Beloff, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Belstead, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Brookeborough, V.	McNair, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Mansfield, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Margadale, L.
Cathcart, E.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Craigavon, V.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Crathorne, L.	Nunburnholme, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	O'Neill of the Maine, L.
De La Warr, E.	Portland, D.
Denham, L. [Teller]	Rochdale, V.
Drumalbyn, L.	St. Just, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Saltoun, Ly.
Elton, L.	Sandford, L.
Ferrier, L.	Sandys, L. [Teller]
Gisborough, L.	Sharples, B.
Glanusk, L.	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Glasgow, E.	Swinfen, L.
Gray, L.	Thurso, V.
Greenway, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Gridley, L.	Trumpington, B.
Grimston of Westbury, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Hampton, L.	Wigoder, L.
Henley, L.	Winstanley, L.
Hives, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

8.36 p.m.

Clause 12 [Fees for taxi and hire car licences]:

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 62: Page 9, line 29, after ("shall") insert ("seek to").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment takes us to Clause 12 and the fees for taxi and hire car licences. At present in the Bill the Government say that a licensing authority has to fix the fees: in respect of applications for and grants of taxi and hire car licences as may be resolved by them from time to time and shall ensure that the total amount of such fees is reasonably sufficient to meet", expenses and so on. With all due respect, I do not think that they will be able to meet that, so I have tabled a very sensible and reasonable amendment which the Government are dying to accept: that they shall "seek to" ensure this and not just put them to the business of making absolutely certain. I beg to move.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord and the House will be very interested to learn that as regards this particular amendment we are not of the opinion that there is very much between the noble Lord and myself on this particular issue. This is a fairly short clause and, I hope, fairly definitive. Under the clause as drafted, I am satisfied that the local authority has some flexibility in balancing its books. For example, there is no requirement in the clause that proceeds must equal costs in a month, or a quarter, or indeed a calendar year or any year. The local authority thus has some flexibility in ensuring, over whatever period it may choose, that its fees and expenses are ultimately in balance.

But we see no harm in the amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, and it perhaps helps to underline the point that some reasonable room for manoeuvre is possible, provided that the general intention is clear—that fees are set at a level which will meet expenses. Therefore, I at least am happy to advise the acceptance of the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, does the noble Lord think that in addition to meeting the general expenses, administrative expenses, and so on, they should perhaps have a little profit as well?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I am sure that the clause as drawn does not preclude a small profit or a small loss either way. But in both paragraphs (a) and (b) the clause points out that the fees shall meet the expenses and the reasonable administrative or other expenses. How the noble Lord, the House or, indeed, those professions which have to define what the noble Lord mentioned loosely as "a profit", might define that, I do not think we should go into tonight. I think that we should leave the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in the Bill. It slightly improves the clause and I hope that my noble neighbour will accept that.

Clause 13 [Taxi and hire car driving licences]:

Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 63: Page 10, line 2, after ("1972") insert ("or a licence which would at the time of his application entitle him to such a licence without taking a test").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. As the House may know, with effect from 1st January 1983, a directive from the EEC providing for the reciprocity of driving licences within the Community will come into effect. The effect of this particular directive would be that the holder of a valid EEC licence would be entitled to a British licence without a further test, and it has been put to us that such an entitlement should be sufficient to avoid disqualification under Clause 13(2) in the Bill from holding a taxi or, indeed, a hire car driver's licence, provided always that the appropriate EEC licence had been held for a continuous period of at least one year. This amendment will also have the advantage of meeting any future arrangements which may be negotiated on driving licence reciprocity with other countries which are outside the EEC.

However, I should emphasise that the amendment in no way requires the licensing authority to grant a taxi or hire car driver's licence to a holder of such an EEC licence; the amendment merely requires that it cannot refuse to consider an application solely on the grounds that the EEC licence-holder had not held the licence issued under the Road Traffic Act 1972 for at least a year. Of course, in practice, we would expect that, before granting a licence, the licensing authority would want to be sure that each individual, irrespective of his origin, had a minimum of driving experience and, of course, regard would be had to such factors as the age of the applicant and where and how his previous experience had been acquired.

The amendment is therefore primarily a technical one designed to take account of the directive on reciprocity. It will not put the holders of other EEC licences in any more, or less, favourable a position than are the holders of licences issued under the Road Traffic Act 1972. Judgment on suitability will be made by the licensing authority in the light of the experience of the applicant. I would commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.

Clause 15 [Operation of taxis outside licensing areas]:

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 64: Page 11, line 12, after ("from") insert ("and to").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think we could safely take amendments Nos. 64, 65, and 66 together. They deal with exactly the same point. It is the point of fixing the fare to a destination outside the area of the licensing authority and with agreement if there is another licensing authority in that destination. What I say is that the fare should be fixed not only to that destination but from it as well—to and from. The point is made three times in this particular clause. I beg to move.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, the provisions of Clause 15 which we are considering in these three amendments are designed primarily to cater for the situation of a taxi which is journeying to what we call a named destination, such as an airport or a station, in another area. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, has suggested the scenario that that taxi, having dropped its fare at, let us say, the airport or the station, would not then be entitled under the existing law, or the Bill's present provisions, to pick up another fare except under the circumstances envisaged in Clause 20(2). This provides for that, if there had been a prior arrangement at the taxi's home base.

I am not entirely sure whether we can accept Amendments Nos. 64, 65, and 66 as they stand, but I accept that if, for example, Clause 15 has been used by, let us say, the East Kilbride district in consultation with the Renfrew district to specify a fare from East Kilbride to Glasgow airport it would be anomalous if, on the passenger's return flight and if he decided to telephone the East Kilbride taxi firm to take him home again, that fare would not be controlled on the same basis as his outward fare.

Therefore, I shall look at the wording of these amendments to see whether they are necessary. 1 do not think that we could in the present climate appear to give any authority to taxis to ply for hire outwith their own district in search of homecoming passengers. It is against that background that I want to look at the proposed amendments. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, might consider that.

Lord Stodart of Leaston

My Lords, may 1 just make the point that in the report which bears my name we took a certain amount of interest in this. In fact, if I may say so, taxi licensing was a subject that raised more fury, rather to my surpise, than did any other when the regions went back into their corners and the districts into theirs. That is by the way. All that we did feel was of immense importance was that there should be a pretty strong agreement about taxi journeys that crossed district boundaries, and that there should be no chance of a racket being used for returning the one way, unless of course factors such as extraordinary late hours were involved. I would hope that my noble friend could say that there would be consultation between the contiguous districts with regard to the fares one way and the other.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, this Bill is getting dangerous if the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, and I are coming to more or less the same conclusions in respect of the importance of certain journeys, but I hope we shall be forgiven for coming together in this respect. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for what he has said. It needs further consideration, and it may well be that what I have proposed here may not be the best way of doing it, but the noble Lord knows what I am after and concerned about. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, for having drawn attention to the importance of this. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 64, and I shall not move Nos. 65 and 66.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 67 not moved.]

Clause 19 [Regulations relating to taxis and hire cars and their drivers]:

8.47 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 68: Page 14, leave out lines 10 and 11.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is where we come to the Secretary of State's powers. We have been told that so much is being left to the local authorities, and here we have in Clause 19 that, the Secretary of State may by rcgulations provide that licensing authorities shall, in relation to taxi, hire car, taxi drivers' or hire car drivers' licences, impose such conditions or classes of conditions as may be prescribed in the regulations …", and that the local authority, shall not impose such other conditions or classes of conditions as may be so prescribed".

In other words, he is going to lay down what they can do and what they cannot do. I think he is just tying them up completely and leaving little or no latitude to the local authorities.

Bearing in mind that we have had the argument already that this is not all that important anyway, that they do not need to license the taxis at all unless they do so by resolution, it is just a bit too much. However, I am prepared to listen to the compelling reasons that are going to be brought forward by the Minister of State as to why this line and a half should remain. In the meantime, I beg to move.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will be very disappointed. There will be no compelling reasons from me but just nagging accuracy, I hope. Of course, it is difficult to predict exactly at this time what kind of conditions we might need to prohibit. Indeed, our hope is that such a prohibition would not be necessary because in the Joint Working Party we envisaged—and envisage still—with local authorities and the trade that a wide measure of agreement can emerge. The conditions which are prescribed under Clause 19 may reflect a view of the consensus with the implication that local authorities will not feel it necessary, or desirable, to add substantially to the core of conditions.

None the less, there are a number of conditions which local authorities in the past have sought to impose and which it might be desirable, after due consultation with the various interests, to make it clear that we would not want to see included in any local condition. May we take one example as regards the vehicles. I have been concerned that some areas have been inclined to make it a condition that no licence should be granted to vehicles unless they were painted black. Other local authorities have specified, without regard to local operating conditions, that vehicles must be of at least two litres in engine capacity, and yet others have sought to provide, even away from the cities, that only the so-called metropolitan cab can be used.

There may well be arguments for such conditions in some circumstances, but I am by no means persuaded that it is in the interests of the public, or indeed in the interests of the trade, to require such uniformity. I hope we can reach agreement on vehicle types, in consultation, but we need some sort of reserve power.

As regards hire cars, a number of local authorities have sought to impose prohibitions on the use of radios in hire cars. Again, I hope we can persuade those authorities that that is a rather Luddite attitude which ignores the benefits of new technology and in the end operates against the public interest. Nonetheless, we may want to make it quite clear that such conditions would not, in our view, be desirable.

As regards the holders of vehicles licences—whether for taxis or hire cars—other licensing authorities have sought to make it a condition that no licence should be granted to an applicant who lived outwith their area; so that if, for example, a taxi driver moves house for only a matter of a few hundred yards, he might cross the boundary and find himself liable to forfeiting his licence. Some local authorities seek to prohibit any part-time drivers, while others impose limits on the number of vehicle licences which may be owned by one operator. Such restrictions, in our view, operate to the disadvantage both of the public and the trade and we would not want them continued. On the other hand, we accept that we must have consultations with the local authorities, the convention and the police before reaching a final view, and that is why we seek here what is, in effect, a reserve power to make it clear on a national basis that certain conditions should be prohibited.

Lord Ross of Marnock

That is the most compelling list of arguments I have heard all day, and, in view of that, coupled with the fact that we shall review all these matters again— this prescription of classes of things which must be done and may not be done will come back to us because they are governed by statutory instrument subject to annulment pursuant to a resolution of either House—in that Parliament will virtually control even the Secretary of State in respect of what he may do or what may not be done in this context, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 [Offences]:

8.53 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 69: Page 15, line 12, leave out ("£50") and insert ("£25").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are here faced with a list of offences and fines. While in subsections (1) (2) and (3) the fine is £200, at this point in the clause it is £50. Let us examine what this fine is for. We are told: If any person, without reasonable excuse, causes or permits any vehicle other than a taxi to wait on any stance for taxis during any period for which that stance has been appointed by the licensing authority "— then, if found guilty, on summary conviction, there shall be a fine of £50. Many of us have driven to a spot where the only place to stop is a taxi stance. Surely we will not be subject to a fine of £50? It refers to "without reasonable excuse", and I should like to know what that means. The fact that a Scottish Office car was dropping the Minister of State somewhere and parked on a taxi stance is no excuse at all, and it will not be the Minister of State who pays the fine but the poor lassie driving him. I think £50 is rather too much; I suggest £25 would be sensible. I beg to move.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I do not know how much things have changed, if at all, since the noble Lord, Lord Ross, occupied cars used by the Scottish Office. From such experience as I have of riding in the department's cars I can say that never do any of those cars break the law under any traffic rules. The House will be aware that the offence mentioned in this provision comes under the umbrella of a major traffic offence. The amendment would mean that for the offence of standing without authority on a taxi stance, there would be a maximum fine not of £50 but of £25. I find this a difficult issue about which to be dogmatic. There seems little doubt that persistent attempts to use a taxi stance as a parking area are likely to be disruptive and extremely annoying not only to other taxis but to the public and other road users generally, and I should not have thought that a £50 fine in such circumstances was unreasonable. We must remember that £50 is the maximum, and of course magistrates have discretion. As I say, this is not something about which to be dogmatic, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will wish to reconsider the point.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I would remind the Minister that we are not talking about a persistent offence but only one occasion. He must not exaggerate matters if he wants me to continue my goodwill towards the arguments he is adducing, compelling or otherwise. Of course, £50 may be all right for him, even for me, and even for the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie; a man from Aberdeen knows the difference between £50 and £25. I will not take the matter to a Division, tempted though I am to do so, because I am sure every Scotsman here would rally to my cause and say that £25 is enough.

I was glad to hear about the virtues of the drivers of Scottish Office cars, particularly in Scotland. I would only mention in passing that it was not always so. I recall one Secretary of State whose car was flagged down by the police, and it so happened that he was on his way to see the chief constable of the county. He said, "The next time I pass through, I want a police escort". I was there the following week and on every corner there was a policeman waving me on.

Seriously, it may be that somebody has to stop at a particular taxi stance, and then the question of "without reasonable excuse" will arise. Personally, I think £25 is quite enough. I too hope the Government will not be dogmatic and will think about it again in the discussions that will take place, and which no doubt will last many hours, and that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will be there putting in a word for common sense. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 70: Page 15, line 19, leave out ("public service").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment about which I feel strongly, and I am glad to see that somebody else feels the same, although it seems that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has fled the field. Here we have an offence for which there will be an exception: In any proceedings under subsection (6) above against the driver of a public service vehicle it shall be a defence to show that he caused his vehicle to wait on a stance … by reason of obstruction to traffic". Why should it be only a public service vehicle that is held up in such circumstances, only for so long as was reasonably necessary for the taking up or setting down of passengers"? I do not think that defence should be limited to public service vehicles. It should be available for any vehicle, and hence the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, seems to query why we have provided this special defence for a public service vehicle waiting on a taxi stance. We find two main arguments. First of all, we think it would make a nonsense of the general prohibition of unauthorised use of a taxi stance if any vehicle was able to use a taxi stance for the purpose of picking up or setting down passengers. To give one example, I would say that chaos could ensue in public places, such as railway stations or airports, if the driver of any vehicle was able to wait in a taxi stance to pick up or set down passengers. It would soon become quite clear to the drivers of all private vehicles that this was much the most convenient way of avoiding parking issues, not least because by their function taxi stances tend to be most conveniently located to any points of access. On the other hand, there are far fewer public service vehicles. Of course many of them operate from bus stops, and their likely use, or abuse, of this provision is very limited in the extreme, but we consider that it makes some sense to have emergency provisions for them.

Secondly, it has been suggested that the driver of any vehicle would be enabled to wait on a stance, without any restriction of time, provided he could show that he had to park there, by reason of obstruction to traffic or for other compelling reason". That, too, seems to me to be a charter for unauthorised use. For example, in Princes Street, in Edinburgh or Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow, the driver of a family car, or any other vehicle, could well argue that in the absence of any available parking space he had to park in a taxi stance to avoid what he might call "obstruction to traffic". To us that seems a nonsense.

Finally, it may reassure some of your Lordships, or perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to know that this provision in Clause 20 is modelled very closely, if not quite word for word, on Section 64 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. I am not aware of any difficulties having arisen under those provisions, though I have to emphasise that that Act applies to England only. Thus the provision is amply precedented. It was introduced by an earlier Administration, and has apparently stood the, albeit brief, test of time. However, if your Lordships have specific examples of difficulties having arisen under the English provisions, I should of course be pleased to look at them.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]

Clause 21 [Saving for certain vehicles etc.]:

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 72: Page 15, line 30, after ("20") insert ("(with the exception of subsections (6) and (8) of section 20)").

The noble Lord said My Lords, I move this amendment because there are further exceptions to subsections (6) and (8) of Clause 20. It may well be right not to apply Clauses 10 to 20 to vehicles being used for bringing passengers or goods from outside the area where the vehicle, is not licensed as a taxi or a hire car". This is one of the difficulties we get into with non-mandatory provisions, in regard to which pleas were made concerning the rural areas. But what if the provisions are applied to funeral cars and wedding cars?—there could be an argument as to whether they were being used as such at the material time—or any vehicle, being used for carrying passengers for hire and reward under a contract". I believe that, if subsections (6) and (8) are to be applied at all, they should be applied in those instances as well, in order to be fair.

There might be justification for saying that the other aspects of Clauses 10 to 20 should not apply, but there is less justification regarding exceptions involving subsections (6) and (8), relating to a vehicle which is not a public service vehicle taking up a place at a taxi stance. I beg to move.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, we have consulted the draftsmen on this amendment and we are happy to say that we are glad to accept it. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has pointed out, the amendment makes clear that not even vehicles which are exempted from the general taxi provisions in Clause 21 are exempt from the offence provisions (which we discussed earlier) in Clause 20(6) and (8). Therefore we are happy to accept the amendment.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, this is very good indeed. The sooner the Minister of State goes away and leaves the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in charge of the matter, the quicker and the better we shall get on. I express my thanks.

Clause 23 (Second-hand dealers' licences):

Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 73: Page 16, line 23, at end insert (", bookseller or auctioneer").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of what happened earlier and the change that the Government made in respect of second-hand dealers, I do not think it necessary for me to add bookseller, auctioneer, et cetera. So I have no desire to move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]

Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 74 and 75:

Page 16, line 31, leave out ("or").

Page 16, line 34, at end insert— ; or (e) a person engaged in the business either of financing the acquisition of goods by means of hire-purchase agreements, conditional sale agreements or credit sale agreements (as defined in section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974) or of financing the use of goods by means of hiring agreements").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 together. These amendments arc designed to meet the undertaking given to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, during an earlier stage that the Government would look at the provisions as they relate to hire purchase and finance houses, and introduce a suitable amendment if the present Bill did not exclude those interests. We are satisfied that an amendment is required and the amendments specifically exclude the acquisition or use of goods by hire purchase, et cetera. I beg to move.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.

Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 76: Page 16, line 35, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as part of our reconsideration of the requirements placed on secondhand dealers (which we shall be moving later in relation to Clause 24) we consider that the fixing of days and times of opening of the premises of a dealer is a matter that can be included in Clause 24, rather than in this clause—if the local authority feel that such conditions are indeed necessary. This is a paving amendment which seeks to delete the "opening hours" requirement from this clause. I beg to move.

Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 77 to 79:

Page 17, line 7, leave out ("subsection (2)(a)") and insert ("subsections (2)(a) and (4)").

Page 17, line 8, leave out from ("person") to ("who") in line 10.

Page 17, line 12, leave out from ("pawn") to end of line 14.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 77, which stands in the name of my noble friend, I would also wish to move Amendments Nos. 78 and 79, which are consequential upon it. When the Bill was being drafted Section 37 of the Pawnbrokers Act 1872 was still in force, but the section has in fact now been repealed by a commencement order made bringing in certain repeal provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This amendment and Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 arc therefore tabled to remove the references to Section 37 of the 1872 Act. The definition of "pawn ticket" in relation to the 1872 Act still applies, however, as that particular definition is unlikely to be repealed for some time. I hope that with the leave of the House I may move en bloc Amendments Nos. 77, 78 and 79.

Clause 24 [Keeping of records of stock-in-trade]:

The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart)

My Lords, I should say that if the next amendment, No. 80, is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 81.

Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 80 and 81: Page 17, line 20, leave out from ("below") to end of line 33. line 32, after ("subsection") insert ("if and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I will be helpful here. The Government are being very helpful. They listened to what was said during Committee stage, and they are going to move, I hope, very quickly, very shortly and very briefly a splendid new clause which covers most of the points. In view of that, I do not propose to move Amendment No. 80 or No. 81.

[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 82: Leave out Clause 24 and insert—

("Conditions in second-hand dealers' licences.

24. Without prejudice to paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to this Act, a licensing authority may attach conditions to a secondhand dealers' licence—

1. (a) fixing the days and times when the dealer may carry on business; and
2. (b) after consultation with the chief constable, requiring the keeping of records in relation to the dealer's stock-intrade,

which conditions may, without prejudice to the generality of the authority's powers under this section, include provision as to—

1. (i) the information to be included in those records;
2. (ii) their form;
3. (iii) the place or places where they are to be kept; and
4. (iv) the period of time for which they are to be kept.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has already said, these matters came up during the Committee stage and this amendment seeks to achieve the flexibility which I undertook to try to achieve when the noble Lord was good enough to withdraw his amendment. In effect, the amendment enables the licensing authority, after consultation with the police, to apply to the licence certain conditions relating to the keeping of records. This I think places the responsibility firmly where it should lie. In other words, it is up to the police to persuade the licensing authority what records they require to ensure that their crime prevention duties can be satisfactorily carried out. At the same time it enables the licensing authority to judge whether or not detailed records or some lesser forms of record might suit the particular second-hand activity to be licensed.

I think this is, on reflection, the most satisfactory way to achieve the balance that the Government want between, on the one hand, the right of the individual to pursue his legitimate business with the minimum of statutory book-keeping and, on the other, the duty of the police to carry out their duties. I beg to move.

Clause 25 [Disposal of stock-in-trade]:

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 86:

Page 18, line 1, leave out ("subsection (2) below") and insert ("subsections (1A) and (2) below and section 29 of this Act").

Page 18, line 3, leave out ("72") and insert ("48").

Page 18, line 4, at end insert— ("( ) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to any article acquired by the dealer in a public roup and disposed of by him without being brought to his place of business.").

Page 18, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("(2) A licensing authority may, on granting a second-hand dealer's licence or at any time thereafter, on application by the dealer and after consultation with the chief constable, order that subsection (1) above shall not apply to the disposal by the dealer of any item, or any specified item or class of items of his stock-in-trade or any specified part of it. ( ) An order under subsection (2) above may—

1. (a) be made subject to such conditions as the authority think fit;
2. (b) relate to stock-in-trade or items thereof still to be acquired by the dealer to whom the order relates; or
3. (c) be varied or revoked at any time by the licensing authority.

( ) In subsection (2) above, "specified" means specified in an order under that subsection. ( ) A holder of a second-hand dealer's licence may appeal to the sheriff against a decision of the licensing authority under this section and paragraphs 17(6) to (12) and (14) and (15) of Schedule 1 to this Act shall, with any necessary modifications, apply to an appeal under this subsection.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 83 I will move also Nos. 84, 85 and 86. In Committee there was criticism about the provisions in this clause, and that for many of the secondhand activities (and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ross, who mentioned secondhand book dealers) it was ridiculous to expect these people to retain goods for 72 hours. In the light of the obvious strength of feeling that there was in the Committee and the criticism from certain secondhand dealers about the difficulties that they will face if required to retain secondhand articles for 72 hours, we accept that Clause 25 is too restrictive.

What we propose, therefore, is that there should be a retention period of 48 hours (reduced from 72 hours) but that the licensing authority be given power following consultation with the police to provide that any item or class of items in the dealer's stock-in-trade shall not be subject to the retention provision. As part of the package we propose that there should be provisions for appeal to the sheriff against an authority's decision on retention requirements. Provision is also made to exclude from the retention requirements articles acquired at a public roup.

That is the package of the amendments. In Amendment No. 84, where the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and mine are coupled, it must make history, I fancy, and I feel there will be unanimous rejoicings over that. As to Amendment No. 85, I have already mentioned that it was proposed that certain articles should be excluded at public roup or auction. I do not need to say any more about No. 86, which imposes the retention period of 48 hours if no condition is attached to a licence. I beg to move.

Clause 27 [Stolen goods:]

9.14 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 89:

Page 19, line 2, leave out from beginning to ("he") in line 3 and insert ("personally served upon a second-hand dealer at his ordinary residence or place of business or delivered to him there by recorded delivery letter.");

Page 19, line 5, leave out ("stated in subsection (3) below") and insert ("of such service or, as the case may be, delivery");

Page 19, line 6, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 89 en bloc. Criticism was made of the provision in Clause 27(3) that a dealer was expected to know that goods were stolen from the time he received details from the police by "normal first-class post". Critics of this provision argued that reliance on the post was not good enough and it was suggested that the minimum requirement should be for recorded delivery post. The Government have accepted that the postal requirements are insufficient and the amendment makes the necessary adjustment. It was also concluded that some redrafting will eliminate verbiage; and the other amendments achieve this.

Clause 28 [Sellers of second-hand goods: offences etc]:

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 90: Page 19, line 23, leave out subsection (4).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a fairly important civil rights issue because what subsection (4) does is to give complete indemnity to any person who detains a person offering secondhand goods and allows a constable to arrest that person and to take possession of the goods without any fear of civil liability. I do not think that that is quite justified. For that reason it makes people rather careless of accusations they may make. I do not think it is a customary or traditional provision. People must be aware of what they are doing. I should be annoyed if I were stopped when selling a book and the suggestion was made that it had been stolen, if I was detained, if a constable was brought and arrested me, and then it was found it was all a mistake; but that, despite all that, I had no recourse to any civil action simply because of the provisions of subsection (4): No civil liability shall arise as a result only of the detention in good faith of a person under subsection (2) above". Good faith, yes, but the harm has been done. People must be careful in regard to such actions. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, withdrew an identical amendment at Committee stage and I had hoped that my arguments on that occasion had been completely persuasive. I was wrong.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, they were not even compelling.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, the Working Party recommended that second-hand dealers should have the right to detain anyone offering articles thought to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained. In addition to accepting this recommendation, we thought it prudent to protect the second-hand dealer, who had acted in good faith, against the possibility of civil action arising from the detention of a suspect. We felt, and still feel, that without this provision in the Bill the dealer would feel unable to act even when he had good reason because he would not be protected against a civil action for what may have been a genuine mistake.

Clearly this would greatly assist the police when trying to find stolen property. The provision was included in the consultation paper and did not create any adverse criticism. Moreover, it contains two safeguards for the seller. First, there is the requirement that the dealer must "have reason to believe" that the object has been unlawfully obtained and, secondly, he may not detain the individual longer than is "reasonably necessary" to obtain the constable. The existence of these two tests does not therefore exclude civil liability, where the tests can be shown not to have been met. This is a balance between the rights of the individual as opposed to the detection of crime. I hope the House will agree on reflection that we have got it right.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I do not think the Government have got it right, but in the absence of all my usual, strong legal advice on this particular Bench I am not going to pursue the matter at this stage. I can assure the Government that it will be raised later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30 [Metal dealers' licences]:

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 91 and 92:

Page 20, line 12, leave out from ("dealer") to end of line 13.

Page 20, line 18, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 en bloc. I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I say that at the Committee stage there was criticism and possibly confusion about the extent to which the metal dealing provisions applied to the itinerant metal dealer. I promised that I would look again at the particular provisions to ensure that those that applied to both dealers would be re-examined and amendments tabled as appropriate.

Your Lordships will see, glancing down the Marshalled List, that there are a number of amendments which are designed to achieve the desired clarity. Amendments Nos. 95 to 99, for instance, are designed to overcome the concern that the record keeping and retention period for metal is oppressive and bureaucratic and seek to place these matters at the discretion of licensing authorities after consultation with the police to decide what is appropriate in the local situation. I hope therefore that the "package", if I may so call it, is more acceptable to your Lordships. I only mention the matter now because it will mean that as I come to each amendment I can move it even more shortly. I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, with the leave of the House, Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 are moved en bloc. I should say at this stage that if Amendment No. 92 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 93.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I think that this is a useful series of amendments and helps to clarify the Bill. We became really confused and then the ultimate confusion came when the Minister of State told us that "metal dealer" included an itinerant metal dealer. Well, it did not always do so. I shall give the civil servants something of a puzzle: I think that they have left one little bit out. I am not going to tell them what it is so that between now and the next stage they can have a look at it. I am very happy indeed to be a victim of these amendments—because one of my amendments will obviously fall. However, there is another day and indeed there are some compelling arguments for that amendment to be made—that is to say, the removal of the phrase "anywhere in Scotland". What is being done here is very sensible. I am very glad to be on the Government's side on this occasion.

[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]

Clause 31 [Keeping of records]:

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 94: Page 20, line 22, leave out ("(other than an itinerant metal dealer)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 31 deals with the keeping of records by the static metal dealer. As the itinerant metal dealer references have been deleted from Clause 30 there is no need to refer to the itinerant in Clause 31. This amendment therefore removes the reference to itinerant metal dealers. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 95:

Page 21, line 7, at end insert— ("( ) A book kept under subsection (3) above shall be retained by the dealer for a period of two years from the day on which the last entry was made in it.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the Bill as drafted no provision is made relating to the period for which books must be kept by dealers. Clearly they must know when it is safe to destroy their books and this amendment places a requirement on them to keep their books for two years from the date of the last entry. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I have no doubt that the Government will have had some advice from the police in respect of this amendment. I am not opposing this, but I want to comment that the advice that the police gave in respect of the number of years, the length of time that other people have to keep books and receipts, is strangely different from what they commend in respect of themselves regarding lost property, which we shall come to in due course.

Clause 32 [Retention of metal]:

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 96: Page 22, line 4, after ("to") insert ("subsection (1A) below and").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 96 and to speak to Nos. 98 and 99. I have said that the Government have no wish to create unnecessary problems for the scrap metal industry. We have been receiving representations about the retention requirements in the Bill. While the Bill, as presently drafted, is unlikely to cause problems for the small scrap metal dealer, we accept that the dealer with a large firm who is processing thousands of tons of scrap metal annually will have storage problems if the retention period is made too long.

Against this is the very real problem which the police in their crime prevention capacity will face if no retention period is provided. The solution to the problem, as the Government see it, is to provide a 48-hour retention period but to give the licensing authority, in consultation with the police, the discretion to reduce that period, as a licensing condition, for all or any specific categories of scrap metal processed by a dealer. An example of this would be the dealer who has a contract to dispose of scrap from, say, British Steel or to dispose of abandoned vehicles for the police or the local authority. In cases like this we would expect the police to accept that these categories of scrap could be processed immediately and the licensing authority would give such an exemption in the licence they issue. The advantages of the new provisions are that it becomes a local matter involving the licensing authority, the police and the dealer to decide whether or not the 48-hour retention period should apply and to what categories of scrap metal. The Government feel that these new proposals will be readily accepted by all concerned, and the right to appeal to the sheriff against a licensing authority decision will ensure fairness.

I have spoken at some length on these amendments, but I think it is right that the House should appreciate why the Government have moved from their original position. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for having moved from their original position. I do not think that they properly appreciated the importance of this in respect of an industry in Scotland. Indeed the size of this industry took me rather by surprise when I started talking to people about it. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Darling, who was in touch with the scrap metal dealers in England: he expressed surprise that this was actually being visited upon Scottish scrap metal dealers. It is alien to everything that is done south of the Border. In fact I have received information from iron and steel metal merchants in Glasgow, from John R. Adams and Sons. Mr. Adams is the president of the Scottish Scrap Association, and he says this: We deeply resent this discrimination against Scottish merchants but we are worried much more by the effect of this clause on our business. If we had been consulted by those who drafted the Bill we could have demonstrated that the modern scrapyard is like any other manufacturing establishment, equipped with expensive machinery whose efficient operation depends on the rapid throughput and maximum utilisation, and Clause 32 will prevent us achieving this". They give these facts: We have managed to build up this trade in Scotland and in 1980 we exported nearly 18 million pounds-worth of ferrous scrap from Scottish ports and in 1981 the figure is bound to rise". You can imagine the hold-up that is in here by this arbitrary Clause 32, applicable only to Scottish merchants. The hold-up originally, I think, was 72 hours and is now reduced to 48. Quite frankly, I do not think this goes far enough to meet the particular points that have been raised with me. For example, I have another letter from Henderson Kerr Limited of Bellshill in Lanarkshire. They say that they will have to keep 1,200 tonnes of scrap in excess of their needs, which is totally impracticable.

I suggest that although the Government have advanced as they have, they should go back again and properly consult the Scottish authorities and see how unfair they are being. I shall not oppose this amendment—it is an improvement—but I still think it does not go far enough.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 97: Page 22, line 5, after ("any") insert ("non-ferrous").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it has been put to me by the scrap merchants that if this new classification did not apply to ferrous metal it would be very helpful. This is a further advance. I do not necessarily ask for it tonight, but I ask that this be one of the things which the Government take into account when they are reconsidering. I must tell the noble Earl that the Government must reconsider this, and that I will pursue it at the next stage. It will also be pursued violently in another place, unless the Government see reason. I hope that they will look at this again, because we are not here to say that this crowded House will visit upon Scotland some oppressive legislation which the Government do not see fit to visit upon similar merchants in the rest of the country. My Lords, I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Ross, gets too indignant about the plight of the poor scrap metal merchants, I hope that he will cast his eyes downwards to my Amendment No. 99, to which I have already spoken, where he will see that, in fact, there is considerable flexibility of approach which will be at the discretion of the licensing authority. In other words, if Amendment No. 99 is agreed to, this amendment will be totally unnecessary.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I was not unaware of what the Government are doing. I said that it was an advance. But I ask the noble Earl to remember that this is not something that can be taken for granted. First, the dealer has to apply, and it is then up to the local authority. This is really a national business and different authorities in various parts of the country could take a different point of view. Therefore, from the point of view of competition, there is a recognised and patent unfairness. It is something which should be dealt with within the Bill, and not left in this roundabout way for the Government to make amends about something which was an oversight in the first place. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 98 and 99:

Page 22, line 6. leave out ("72") and insert ("48").

Page 22, line 7. at end insert— ("(1A) A licensing authority may, on granting a metal dealer's licence or at any time thereafter, on application by the dealer and after consultation with the chief constable, order that subsection (1) above shall not apply to processing by the dealer of such metal or classes of metal as may be specified in the order. (1B) An order under subsection (1A) above may—

1. (a) be made subject to such conditions as the licensing authority think fit;
1261
2. (b) relate to metal still to be acquired by the metal dealer to whom the order relates;
3. (c) be varied or revoked by the licensing authority.

(1C) The holder of a metal dealer's licence may appeal to the sheriff against a decision of the licensing authority under this section and paragraphs 17(6) to (12) and (14) and (15) of Schedule I to this Act shall, with any necessary modifications, apply to an appeal under this subsection.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 100: Leave out Clause 32.

The noble Lord said: If we had come to this point four or five hours ago, I should have taken this matter to a Division. The Minister of State saw fit to caution me not to become indignant. He has never yet seen me really indignant. If he waits, and if he goes on with this kind of obstructive line so far as a section of Scottish industry is concerned, then he will have that doubtful pleasure. Meantime, I do not propose to move to leave out Clause 32. But, better as it is, it is still not good enough.

[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 101: After Clause 32, insert the following new clause:

("Itinerant metal dealers

.—(1) A licence, to be known as an "itinerant metal dealer's licence" shall be required for carrying on business as an itinerant metal dealer.

(2) An itinerant metal dealer's licence shall have effect so as to permit the licence holder to carry on business as an itinerant metal dealer anywhere in Scotland.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 91 and 93. I beg to move.

Clause 33 [Itinerant metal dealers]:

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos, 102 and 103:

Page22, line 16, leave out ("2 years") and insert ("6 months").

Page22, line 22, leave out ("2 years") and insert ("6 months").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asked whether we had got the retention period for invoices and receipts correct, and suggested that it was asking too much of itinerant dealers to keep them for two years. I agree, and the amendments therefore seek to reduce the period from two years to six months. I hope that the noble Lord finds this acceptable. My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the line that he has. I am sure that six months will be much more acceptable to some of the scrap metal dealers, itinerant and otherwise, whom I have come across. However, I should think that the enforcement of this will also have its difficulties.

Clause 34 [Certain offences]:

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 104 to 108:

Page 22, line 26, after ("dealer") insert ("or itinerant metal dealer").

Page 22, line 36, after ("dealer") insert ("or itinerant metal dealer").

Page 22, line 37, after ("or") insert (",as the case may be").

Page 22, line 39, after ("by") insert ("section 33 of").

page 23, line 1, at end insert ("or itinerant metal dealer").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 104, 105, 106, 107 and 108 en bloc. These amendments make it quite clear that the offences relating to metal dealing apply also to itinerant metal dealing. I trust that by this means I have removed the concern expressed by several of your Lordships during the Committee stage. I beg to move.

Clause 35 [Metal believed to be stolen]:

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 109: Page 23, line 5, after ("dealer") insert ("or itinerant metal dealer").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a similar amendment to Amendment No. 104. I beg to move.

Clause 36 [Stolen metal]:

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 110: Page 23, line 20, after ("dealer's") insert ("or itinerant metal dealer's").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is again similar and is moved for the sake of clarity. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 113:

Page 23, line 35, leave out from beinning to ("he") in line 36 and insert— ("(a) personally served upon a metal dealer at his ordinary residence or place of business or delivered to him there by recorded delivery letter; or (b) personally served upon an itinerant metal dealer anywhere or delivered to him at his ordinary residence or place of business by recorded delivery letter.").

Page 23, line 37, leave out ("stated in subsection (3) below") and insert ("of such service or, as the case may be, delivery").

Page 23, line 39, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 113 en bloc. These amendments are similar to Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 89 which related to Clause 27. They provide for notice by recorded delivery, eliminate unnecessary verbiage and also permit notice of stolen metal to be served personally on an itinerant metal dealer while on his rounds if he has no residence locally. I beg to move.

Clause 37 [Functions of the court in relation to metal dealers convicted of offences]:

9.40 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 114: Page 24, line 1, after ("dealer") insert ("or itinerant metal dealer").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 114 and to speak to Amendment No. 116. These amendments make the conviction of an itinerant metal dealer subject to the same notification by the clerk of the court convicting him as applies to the ordinary metal dealer. In other words, an itinerant dealer convicted of a dealing offence would be reported to the licensing authority which issued his licence. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 115: Page 24, line 2, leave out ("metal dealing") and insert ("his business as such").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the inclusion of the itinerant dealer in this subsection means that the reference to a metal dealing offence is not wide enough to cover the itinerant. My amendment widens the position and ensures that both types of dealer are covered. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 116: Page 24, line 9, leave out ("metal dealing") and insert ("his business as such").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 117:

Page 24, line 24, at end insert— ("(5) A licensing authority receiving, by virtue of subsection (1) above, a certified extract of a conviction of an itinerant metal dealer shall notify all other licensing authorities of the particulars of the conviction.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to ensure that in respect of the itinerent dealer who offends, the licensing authority, on receiving details of the conviction from the court, will advise all other licensing authorities. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, this is a considerable duty being placed on the licensing authority and it arises from the fact that the originally issued licence allowed the itinerant metal dealer to deal anywhere in Scotland. This was the point I was rather sorry about; that that phrase is still there, and it may well be that we shall return to consider it. One of the consequences is that one authority licenses the dealer for the whole of Scotland and not just for the authority's own area. The result is that if the dealer is convicted, the authority has to inform the rest of Scotland, whereas had the dealer been limited in respect of his activities to the authority's own area, this would not arise. This is just a consequence of something that should not have been there in the first place. But I support the amendment.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, it is as broad as it is long. Either the unfortunate itinerant metal dealer goes to all the licensing authorities where he wants to ply his trade, which means that the authorities have to deal with every application as it comes along, or else one has it as we have made it in the Bill; as long as the itinerant metal dealer behaves himself, that is the end of the matter, but if he is convicted the court which convicts him has to inform the licensing authority, and that has to inform all the others. There is not much in it.

Clause 38 [Appropriate licence required]:

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 118 and 119:

Page 24, line 25, leave out ("both").

Page 24, line 26, after second ("dealer") insert ("and as an itinerant metal dealer or as any two of these kinds of dealer").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments provide that if the person carries on any two or more of the activities of secondhand dealing, itinerant metal dealing and metal dealing, he will require a licence in respect of each activity. I beg to move.

(Amendment No. 120 not moved.)

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 121, I should say that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 122.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No.121: Page 24, line 29, leave out from ("a") to end of line 33 and insert ("person who carries on a business which consists wholly or partly of buying and selling for scrap waste materials and old, broken, worn out, defaced or partly manufactured articles made wholly or partly of metal which he collects by means of visits from house to house and which he disposes of").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment aims to make it clear that the itinerant metal dealer is not a category of metal dealer per se but carries out his activities of buying and selling for scrap waste materials, including those made wholly or partly of metal, by means of door to door collection. I beg to move.

(Amendment No. 122 not moved.)

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 123: Page 24, line 38, leave out from first ("metal") to end of line 39 and insert ("means any metal (including any precious metal) and any alloy of any metals, whether old or new and includes").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment to make it clear that in the definition of "metal" we are including all types of metal, including precious metals. The scrap metal industry suggested that "ferrous and non-ferrous" be added to the definition. The amendment which I am suggesting encompasses all metals and meets the industry's point. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 124: Page 25, line 2, at end insert ("but does not include an itinerant metal dealer within the meaning of this subsection").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which makes it clear that an itinerant metal dealer is not a metal dealer for the purposes of the metal dealing licensing requirements. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 125: Page 25, leave out lines 3 and 4.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment removes the interpretation of "metal dealing" which, by virtue of earlier amendments, is now unnecessary. I beg to move.

9.46 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 126: After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:

("Licensing of sex establishments.

. Subject to the provisions of this section a licence under this Act to be known as a "sex establishment licence" shall be required for the use of premises for a business which consists mainly of selling, hiring, exchanging, lending, displaying or demonstrating

1. (a) sex articles; or
2. (b) other things intended for use in connection with or for the purpose of stimulating or encouraging
1. (i) sexual activity, or
2. (i) acts of force, restraint, violence or cruelty which are associated with sexual activity; or
3. (c) any article containing or embodying matter to be read or looked at and any recording of vision or sound which primarily deals with or relates to or is intended to stimulate sexual activity or acts of force, restraint, violence or cruelty which are associated with sexual activity.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is promoted by the concern of Scottish local authorities about their inability, through lack of powers, to control the establishment, the setting up, of what are called sex shops, and indeed the fact that more and more of them are appearing in different parts of the country. We have the position in relation to Glasgow, in relation to Paisley, in relation to Kilmarnock, Aberdeen, Dundee, and it has come as a surprise to many people to find that the Government have not already taken power to enable local authorities to deal with what many people consider undesirable.

I know all the libertarian arguments about it, but there is no doubt at all that the people in the particular areas have shown that they are concerned. When you place it into the position of licensing generally, as it is in this Bill and other Bills, you now get this position. I take these facts from the Sunday Standard of November of last year. On one side of Gordon Street in Paisley, just beside the bus station there is a licensed grocers. They cannot open and close and do business without a licence. There is a betting shop; it requires a licence. There is a pub which requires a licence. On the other side of the street a shop opened in October-November which is called a private shop; it is a sex shop, selling—I quote—self-styled hard porn magazines, sex aids, Swedish video tapes, plus a lounge where you can have a £2 trial view, and other sexual paraphernalia. And it does not need a licence. Despite growing local and national concern, these private sex shops will not need a licence until the Government act along the lines in this new clause.

Some people have suggested that we should deal with this under the planning Acts. In fact, you can do nothing about it under the planning Acts, because they take over a shop; it is not a change of use. So from that point of view they can do what they like, and this is what is happening. Despite an active campaign by Scottish police to close down these shops, when one was opened by Centre Wall in Glasgow's Dumbarton Road last year, and a second in Aberdeen—and let it he noted it is not Scots who are financing these innovations, it is people from this part of the world—there was an almost farcical series of scenes, with police removing all the stock one day and Centre Wall simply restocking the next day, and this happened at least half a dozen times. Of course they won a legal appeal, so they are in the right and will remain in the right until this House and the other House act. The company is free to carry on a business that the police consider undesirable, and that many people, in groups, churches, community concerns. equally are worried about. I think it w as in Paisley that 150 Paisley people staged Scotland's first anti-sex shop march outside this shop I mentioned in Gordon Street. It may well just have given them a little publicity that they would approve of, but nobody else would. But about 1,200 people have signed a petition. There is no doubt at all that, from the point of view of neighbouring businesses or adjacent businesses—if the Minister of State prefers that phrase—it is undesirable; it brings down the whole aspect of the particular area. As regards the whole traditions of Scotland, it is not something that is desirable. I know that there may well be quick money to be made by some London financier or by probably the same person who finances the Soho establishments. But we do not want them in Scotland.

The Government have seen fit to take action in respect of England, and in the equivalent Bill, which is now before your Lordships' House, at the Report stage in another place they put in a provision giving full power of control in respect of sex establishments to the local licensing authorities. That is what I seek to do here. It may well be that some of my definitions and the penalty provision and so on may not be complete. I deliberately did not spend too much time on this. What I wanted to do was to have accepted by the Government the principle that they would act and that they would provide, either at a later stage in this House or at an early stage in the other place, adequate provision to give control to Scottish local authorities or, if they liked, to give it to them perhaps in the optional provision of licensing; but within that power to license there should be a power not to license at all and to license with conditions, but to leave it to the local authority as to whether they want them at all and, if they do want them, to provide whatever conditions are necessary. If the Government feel that they must give guidance to the local authorities, let them do so. However, I think it is time that we did take action to stop this type of thing spreading because it is one of the cancers that we cannot allow to grow from the point of view of the morals and the morale of Scotland. I beg to move.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has moved an amendment which is extremely relevant to the present situation. I do not know whether the amendment itself is the right one to deal with the situation. But I do know that certainly there does need to be some form of local expression for the tremendous distaste which is felt by very many people in many districts for this particular form of activity. I would very much like to hear the Government's view of the noble Lord's amenmdent.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has spoken very forcefully on a matter which certainly has aroused widespread public concern over recent months. There are a relatively small number of so-called sex shops which have opened in Scotland in recent months, compared with those down south. Nevertheless, they have aroused much indignation and, indeed, abhorrence among a wide cross section of the Scottish public. In particular, it has been repeatedly stressed to us that, as the law stands, local authorities are powerless to prevent the opening of sex shops in their area often in particularly unsuitable locations—for example, next to a school.

However, I should point out that the activities of such sex shops are subject to the criminal law on obscenity and there have been a number of successful prosecutions of late. Further, I should also point out that once Clause 51 of this Bill becomes law with its greatly increased penalties for the sale and so on of obscene material, such prosecutions will become much more effective in stamping out this evil.

Nevertheless, the Government fully share the general concern at the lack of local authority control over the opening of sex shops. We have been giving very full and detailed consideration to this problem, and I can announce and give the undertaking that we propose to introduce amendments to the Bill at Committee stage in another place to provide for a scheme which will require any person who seeks to operate premises as a sex shop to obtain a licence from the relevant local authority before it can open for business.

As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, quite rightly pointed out, a scheme for the licensing of sex shops for England and Wales was recently added to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. We shall want to consider further the details of a licensing scheme for Scotland to ensure that it provides local authorities with effective controls and that it is consistent with the more general licensing provisions in this Bill.

However, I can assure noble Lords that we shall bring forward our proposals as quickly as possible, and that noble Lords will have a full opportunity to debate the provisions when the Bill returns to this House. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, was good enough to say that his amendment was designed to test the reactions of the Government, and I hope that the Government's reaction is one that he will welcome. For the moment, I hope that he will he good enough to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Wilson of Langside

My Lords, I must say that I find it highly unsatisfactory that the matter should be raised in your Lordships' House at this late stage and that it will be introduced by way of amendment in another place. The noble Earl has said that this House will have a full opportunity to discuss the matter when the Bill returns from the other place. I hope that that is indeed so. I am in a little difficulty about this, because, at this hour of the night and on the noble Lord's amendment, it is of course quite impossible to discuss this matter, which is one of considerable concern to people in the country and one which this House certainly should discuss very fully if an opportunity is presented.

Lord Gray

My Lords, I think that there is a matter of principle here which, as has been suggested, at this hour of the night and in respect of this particular amendment perhaps we had best dispense with now. It is a very real one and I think it is something that this House ought to return to in due course.

Lady Saltoun

My Lords, I am thankful to say that I do not think there is very much demand for establishments of this kind in Scotland. but, even if the demand for them was greater than it is, I do not think that they should be permitted at all, let alone licensed. There is a demand—a sma[...]le—for hard drugs, but no one has suggested th[...]ops purveying them should be permitted, let al[...]censed.

Since the libera[...]tion of pornography some 10 years ago or more, ra[...] has increased dramatically, and I believe that there is a direct connection between the two. I am not concerned with the dignity and status of women according to women's libbers; what I am concerned with, and what I think most women in Scotland are concerned with, is their safety and that they should be able to go about the streets, whether by night or by day, upon their lawful occasions in reasonable safety.

I very much hope that the Government will think very carefully before licensing these establishments in Scotland and take advice from the interested parties—the Churches and so forth—and consider, if not banning them altogether, at least including something in any licensing or permitting clause to enable local authorities to ban them.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I think that we should all be grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for his reaction and his fairly honest expression of concern about the problem. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, said that this was not the time. I do not consider that this time is late at night—I may have been badly brought up in a parliamentary sense—or late in the Bill, for that matter. I blame myself. I put down a new clause on glue sniffing at the Committee stage. I do not remember any great interest being taken by noble Lords about it, but the Government took it seriously. I blame myself because I had another new clause which I did not put forward, and that was on this particular subject. It was simply because of the inadequacy of my drafting. I felt it was not even good enough to put on the Marshalled List under the names of anyone on this side of the House. But when I saw the drafting of the one put forward by the Minister in another place for the English Bill, then I thought I could bring forward a few reasonable words about it.

We have the Government accepting the principle that there should be legislation. I think that is all-important, and nobody here has spoken against it. It has been on the Marshalled List since last week, so all the English and the Welsh Lords, and even all the Scotsmen who are not here, saw it. If they had been appalled by it they would have been here opposing it, so I take their absence as consent to what we are doing here tonight.

I think that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is quite right. It is the acceptance of standards of behaviour, and what may virtually be an encouragement to violence in sex, that cannot be any good at all for future behaviour in this country. We have possibilities for setting tones in the nation. If Parliament cannot do it, then nobody can do it. It is no good deploring what is happening, or what is done, if we do not take action when we feel it is necessary to take action.

People have said that by licensing these establishments we are virtually condoning them. That is not true. If we do not take this power, they can be set up, they can spread, they can be established. May I say to the noble Earl—he probably knows—that so far as what is being done in England is concerned, the powers in respect of indecent publications, et cetera, are exactly the same as they are in Scotland without the clause that we are going to come to later on. Therefore, that should not be used as an excuse for not taking this first step. Let me again thank noble Lords who have supported me, and above all thank the Minister for the promise that he has given that action will be taken in another place, and eventually we shall have an opportunity of saying what we feel about it. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw this particular amendment, and will not move the next one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]

Clause 41 [Street traders' licences]:

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 128, I should say that, if No. 128 is agreed, I shall have to call Amendment No. 129 in a different way.

10.3 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 128: Page 27, line 41, after ("place") insert ("designated in the licence").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thought we had more or less stopped for the night. If we want to go on, then let us go on. It means that we are coming to street traders now. What I seek is that, in granting the licence, the local authority should designate the place in the licence where that street trading should be carried on. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, it is already possible for a local authority to restrict the scope of the street trading licence to an area designated by them, and the proposed amendment is unnecessary. The Bill makes it clear in Clause 9(3)(b) that a resolution to adopt the street trading provisions may apply to, the whole or any part of the area of the licensing authority", and paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule I is quite specific that conditions may be imposed on any licence which restricts its validity to an area or areas specified in the licence. I hope, therefore, that this reassures the noble Lord.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I should have been more reassured if this specific power had been included when it could have been exercised. I will not argue with the Minister about it; if he is satisfied and I am not, who am Ito argue? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 129: Page 27, line 41, leave out from ("place") to end of line 42.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment does not arise from an undertaking during the earlier stage. It arises out of a point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Stodart in Committee on 26th January, when he observed (his remarks appear at col. 893 of the Official Report) that the definition of what we called a "public place" might be held to include a farm road, his implication being that because of the definition of "public place" in the clause being extended to include, any part of any premises being a part thereof abutting on a public place". it might mean that the sale of goods from farm buildings would be caught by the Bill. On reconsideration, we believe my noble friend is right and that there is a danger, albeit a remote one, of that happening and, as this would clearly create a nonsense, it seems to us that the best course is to remove the words proposed to be removed by the amendment. Thus, the street trading provision would apply only if the actual sale of goods took place in a public place as defined in the interpretation clause, Clause 128, and I hope we are now removing the danger to which my noble friend alerted us. In theory this may create a possible loophole, not in the farm sales circumstance but in situation where, for example, a mobile shop could park on private property temporarily and sell products to the public in an adjacent street. However, on balance we think the lesser of the two evils is to make the amendment, and therefore I beg to move.

Lord Stodart of Leaston

My Lords, I must say how surprised, if not stunned, I was to see that a suggestion of a simple person like myself had commended itself to my sophisticated noble friends on the Front Bench, and I am most grateful to them.

Clause 42 [Market operators' licences]:

Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 130 to 133:

Page 28, line 33, after ("A") insert ("market operator's");

Page 28, line 33, leave out ("any") and insert ("either");

Page 28, line 40, leave out paragraph (c);

Page 29, line 11, at end insert ("at which goods are offered by more than one seller for sale by retail to the public").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will see that on the Marshalled List there are two amendments marked No. 132. When I come to refer to the second of the amendments so marked I shall explain that there is a misprint.

Lord Ross of Marnock

As there is no Amendment No. 133, my Lords, I think we can take it that the second amendment marked No. 132 should in fact be No. 133.

Lord Lyell

I shall deal with that when I have dealt with the first amendment marked No. 132, my Lords. These amendments are designed to give a more precise definition of what we call "private markets" than the present clause provides for. We now propose that for the purposes of the clause, a licence is required for a private market which is to be defined as a market which satisfies three tests. The first test is that there must be more than one seller; in other words, there can be no question that premises advertising themselves as a "supermarket" would be caught by the provisions unless they housed a number of separate organisations, each selling, in its own right, to the public, often in competition with one another.

The second test is that the goods must be offered for retail sale—that is, for direct use by the consumer. There is no evidence that there is any need to control what we might call "wholesale" markets. The third test that we would apply is that the goods must be for sale to the public. We want to make quite sure that there is no question of catching trades fairs where goods may be sold, for example, for their direct consumption to manufacturers or special users who simply would not be classed as being members of the public.

I should like to make it clear that the dropping of paragraph (c) in Clause 42(2), which refers to wholesale markets, is not in any sense a change in policy. It is merely because we believe that the exemption which we then sought to provide will now be automatically attracted by the new and tighter definition of "private market" provided for in the amendment. Therefore, all four amendments are essentially drafting ones, and as such I would commend them to the House.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, with the leave of the House, the amendments proposed en bloc are Amendments Nos. 130, 131, 132, and the amendment that follows it in the Marshalled List (in which there is a misprint), which is Amendment No. 133.

Clause 43 [Public entertainment licences]:

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 134: Page 29, line 17, leave out ("permitted to") and insert ("may").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment designed to place beyond doubt the application of the clause to "coin-in-the-slot" machines for amusement or entertainment. The concept of permission to use facilities suggests a prior approach to an owner or management for authority to act and is inappropriate to such machines where payment of money for use and use are one and the same action. Accordingly, the amendment substitutes for the phrase: are … permitted to use any facilities", the phrase "may use any facilities", which has no such personal overtones. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 135: Page 29, line 18, leave out ("therein").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 136: Page 29, line 18, leave out from ("recreation") to end of line 30.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a rather more important amendment. It deletes the illustrative list of types of premises which require a licence under the clause. Noble Lords will recall that there was some discussion, in particular on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, on the usefulness of the list when we considered the clause in Committee, and we were in effect asked to consider the need for its inclusion. As I think 1 said at the time, the sole purpose of the list was to give some guidance to local authorities as to the types of premises requiring licences, and it is purely illustrative and adds nothing to the definition of a "place of public entertainment" as set out in Clause 43(2). We have now come to the conclusion that, rather than help the licensing authorities, the list may distract their attention from the essential criteria in the main subsection. In the circumstances we have decided to delete the illustrative list—though I have to say that it was well precedented in the Edinburgh Act—and we shall therefore rest on the combination of the general criteria and the specific exclusions. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, this is one of the more important provisions, since it relates to one of the areas of compulsory licensing. I always thought it a weakness to give a catalogue of places that have to be licensed, because a catalogue can possibly appear exhaustive, yet it gives an indication to a local authority, and who is to blame them if they start making their own exclusions?

Of course, the Government will probably realise that if they are going to rest upon the generality of the definition now—and I do not want to go on about this, but I could at very considerable length—then it could be very difficult for local authorities, with local authorities taking different points of view. Is it in the Government's mind to give guidance to the local authorities? The noble Earl will know that there are many local authorities which will want to embrace everything, to take in every kind of hall which may be used very occasionally for entertainment purposes. There is also the question of the exclusion becoming even more important now that we do not know quite everything that is going to be covered—not that we did before, but we had some fair idea.

There is one other point that I want to raise here. It says, "any place of entertainment". That means in the open air as well as somewhere which is indoors, or a covered marina, bearing in mind that we have a circus and a fairground or pleasure park, which may be outside as well as inside. Does this mean just an open field if it is going to be used for, say, a pop concert and people have to pay to get in there—that that will be under the control of the local authority and will be defined as a place where, on payment of money or money's worth, members of the public are admitted"? All these questions now arise because we have not got a list. It may well be argued that they could arise if we had a list because the list could not be effective. I think that probably the Government are right now to leave out these paragraphs (a) to (j). I am very glad indeed that they have seen the light so far as that is concerned, because it is rather odious to have an incomplete catalogue and yet have quite a long catalogue. I am glad, too, that they have taken out the misprint (if misprint it was, or mistake it was) in respect of the next amendment, where it seemed that they were going to leave out the words, "but does not include", as well. That was in the amendment as first printed, and just made a nonsense of the whole thing. But it meant another quarter of an hour of my time to try to work out what they were at, until I got the Marshalled List today and then discovered, of course, that they had made a mistake, or that somebody had made a mistake—not necessarily the Scottish Office, and certainly not Lord Lyell, hut most likely somebody else who, again, had not listened in respect of these things.

I do not necessarily disagree with the amendment. I think that it is probably quite a good amendment. But it raises difficulties, and the main one is whether the Government will now give guidance to local authorities. Because, remember, we can see this list, but when the Bill is reprinted that list will not be there, and it may be that some local authorities will be a bit in the wilderness, especially those rural local authorities which are not used to licensing anything and which will now discover that every local community hall and every institution with a small hall will require to be licensed if it is going to be used for an entertainment of some kind. But I do not think that anybody could quarrel very much with what the Government are now doing.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, if I may just respond very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, I am glad he welcomed the amendment, albeit not over-enthusiastically. I have to point out that subsection (2) was an illustrative list; it was never intended to be exhaustive. But what has become absolutely apparent is that the list confuses the casual reader, who does think that it is an exhaustive list rather than an illustrative list. Even the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was prone to fall into that trap. Therefore, we shall do away with the list and there will be no list and therefore the various licensing authorities will have to rely on Clause 43 in concluding the criteria and the exclusions, to which I have an amendment in a few moments. Of course, an open air place of public entertainment can fall into the definition just as much as somewhere with a roof. I am considering the question of guidance which has been suggested by the noble Lord but, once you get to guidance, you look as if you are getting into lists and once you get into lists then we have all the trouble that we have been discussing in Committee and tonight. I can give the noble Lord this undertaking that, if we can make things easier for the licensing authorities, then I am sure we shall attempt to do so.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 137, I must point out that if it is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 138.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 137:

Page 29, leave out lines 32 to 42 and insert— ("(a) an athletic or sports ground while being used as such;

1. (b) an educational establishment while being used as such;
2. (c) premises belonging to or held by any religious body while being used wholly or mainly for purposes connected with that body;
3. (d) premises licensed under the Theatres Act 1968, the Cinematograph Act 1909 or Part 11 of the Gaming Act 1968;
1276
4. (e) premises in respect of which there is a permit under section 16 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 while being used in pursuance of the permit;
5. (f) licensed premises within the meaning of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 in which public entertainment is being provided during the permitted hours within the meaning of that Act; or
6. (g) premises in which machines for entertainment or amusement are being provided incidentally to the main purpose or use of the premises where that main purpose or use is not as a place of public entertainment.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, This is an important amendment in the context of what we discussed earlier. This revised version of the exclusions list implements two undertakings I gave earlier, and also makes one or two further amendments in the interests of consistency and clarity. Perhaps I could briefly explain what we hope to achieve by this redraft. In the first place, noble Lords will note that the exemption for educational establishments has been narrowed to include such establishments only "while being used as such". At an earlier stage of discussion on this clause, concern was expressed about the safety aspects of indiscriminate letting out of educational premises (particularly in country areas) for purposes wholly unconnected With their main remit. In response to this concern, I undertook to consider an amendment making it clear that educational establishments are exempt from the licensing requirements only when they are being used by appropriate bodies for educational purposes and not when they are leased out for commercial or unrelated purposes. This amendment is designed to achieve the effect sought: it has to be considered, of course, together with the narrowing of the definition of "educational establishment" which I have also tabled and which we shall shortly be discussing.

As noble Lords will also see from the new sub-paragraph (c) in this revised list, I have also tabled an amendment fulfilling my undertaking to provide for the exemption of Church use by associated Church organisations of Church premises from the licensing requirement. Fund-raising activities undertaken by a Church or Church organisation will therefore be exempt from licensing, but a licence will be required where Church premises are leased out for commercial use to other unrelated bodies (for example, where a fringe theatre group leases a hall for use during the Edinburgh Festival). The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will note that the amendment as drafted refers to "premises belonging to or held by any religious body" rather than "Churches": this wording is designed to cover his fear about the inadvertent exclusion of the Salvation Army from the benefit of any amendment drafted in terms of "Churches".

We have also narrowed certain of the other exclusions in this list in the interests of consistency. An athletic or sports ground will now be exempt from licensing only while being used as such and not when leased out for an open-air pop concert. Similarly, premises in respect of which there is a permit under Section 16 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 will only be exempt while being used in pursuance of the permit. Exemptions in respect of premises licensed under the Theatres Act 1968, the Cinematograph Act 1909 and Part II of the Gamine Act 1968 have been retained in their previous wide form. It is felt that in the light of the stringent safety requirements built into the licensing procedures under these Acts, no further licence should be required under Clause 43 for the use of premises so licensed, irrespective of the form of entertainment is to be held in them.

Finally, we have for the first time provided an exemption for premises in which machines for amusement or entertainment are incidental to their main purpose or use, since it seems unnecessary to license juke-boxes in cafés, and so on. Premises whose main purpose is the provision of such machines (that is, amusement arcades) will still be caught by the essential criteria for licensing set out in Clause 43(2). I beg to move.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for the amendments which cover the points. The first one I made last time was about the use of schools for concerts and country areas and other things which may need licensing. I must say that head (c) covers the point I made about Salvation Army citadels which might have been excluded under the previous definition. I thank the noble Earl on behalf of these bodies.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl in respect of my concern about church buildings. I accept right away that the wording he has, premises belonging to or held by any religious body while being used wholly or mainly for purposes connected with that body", meets the point. It meets the point about the church: it meets the point about the Salvation Army, those patient people who I am sure would like to have been able to hear this discussion, had they been privileged to hear us.

However, the other point I am not sure about— that congratulations were in order from the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in respect of educational establishments while being used as such. What does that mean? He wanted these establishments to be used for fund raising. Maybe for concerts, maybe for village concerts. Nothing to do with education; nothing necessarily to do with the school but important from the point of view of the community. So far as I read this, if they want to do that with the educational establishment, they will need to go and get a licence. They will need to be licensed by the local authority. They are only excluded when the provision, "while being used as such"applies. It runs counter to what the noble Lord wanted, yet he thanks the Government for it!

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, with respect, I should explain that what concerned me was that I have seen schools in rural areas being used for dances, and so on, where people were packed to the doors—and that is the expression that I used—so that nobody could go in or out. It was most unsafe, and I thought that some expression of concern was needed as to the suitability of some of the educational establishments being used for these purposes.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I think that he can rest assured that in future he has brought upon himself considerable unpopularity if the young farmers are not going to he allowed to use an establishment. He knows the young farmers better than I do. There may well be no other place in the village for these activities. I have heard so often in respect of the pleas for keeping open rural schools that these were the essential centre of the community where everything took place. They are now going to be subject to licensing by a tyrannical district licensing authority. When it is discovered that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, insisted that this should be so, I am afraid that that genial countenance is going to be fraught with a few worries about some of the things that they will say about him.

For my own part, I want to thank him for what he has done about the church as a religious body; I think that it was an elder of the kirk somewhere in Lanark who wrote to me about it. He thought his safeguard lay in the definition of the educational establishment. Is it still defined? I do not think it is. It is widened in relation to theological colleges and so on. I am grateful to the Government for the change that they have made in the Bill. I hoped that we might have been able to get this particular clause completely finished; hut it looks as though we still have another important amendment to consider, unless the Government are going to accept the amendment that comes next from me.

The Deputy Speaker: Amendment No. 138 cannot be moved.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 139: Page 30, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert (" but includes a university and a theological college ").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon my earlier amendment limiting educational establishments' exemption from licensing to educational establishments used as such. Its effect is to narrow the definition of "educational establishment" to cover only establishments whose prime purpose is the provision of formal education. By virtue of the reference to paragraph (iii) of definition of "educational establishment" in Section 135(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, Clause 43(4) as drafted includes a wide variety of voluntary clubs providing social and recreative activities. Since the fund-raising uses of a voluntary social club as such might be argued to be wider than the equivalent uses of (for example) a school, it was felt that in the interests of simplicity and consistency of interpretation the definition of "educational establishment" in this clause should be narrowed to exclude establishments whose prime purpose is social, cultural or recreative, covering only establishments for formal school, further or higher education. I beg to move.

Lord Denham

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.