HL Deb 19 February 1985 vol 460 cc552-61

8.18 p.m.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, I beg to move that a Second Reading be given to this Licensing (Amendment) Bill. I venture to suggest that this is an ideal amendment to existing legislation which should be dealt with under the private Bill procedure. It passes all the tests as to how the private Bill procedure should be used. It is modest in its scope, it is easily understood, and it merely brings England and Wales into the same position as now exists in Scotland.

I think I am perhaps qualified to commend it to the House on the grounds that one of the companies with which I am connected has an interest which would be affected if this Bill becomes legislation. My interest is a very marginal one and I am not certain it exists at all, but there is enough in my connection to satisfy me that the general circumstances surrounding the aim of the I Bill are well based.

I do not think I need spend a lot of time discussing the present licensing arrangements which affect this country. I do not think your Lordships need reminding, for example, of the important part that the entertainment industry plays within our nation's economy. Matters to do with entertainment are an important part of our economy in terms of the money they earn and the employment they provide, and from every point of view they are an important part of the total economy of this country to which we all ought to look with care during these times of difficulty. I do not think that I need emphasise to your Lordships the value in money and employment terms of the total entertainment industry. But perhaps what is not so generally known is the size of the contribution to the nation's economy which comes from hotels, restaurants, dancing places and cafe entertainment. I do not think that is so well known, but I assure your Lordships that that segment of the total entertainment industry makes a significant and important contribution.

I was interested to read a debate in another place where it was pointed out that in Scotland, where they already have the facility that I am asking to be extended to England and Wales, the extra freedom allowed there compared with England and Wales provided employment for about 1,500 people. It was suggested that if the same freedoms were translated to England that may mean an increase of about 15,000 jobs. I do not want to over-emphasise that aspect. It is not a massive increase in the number of people at work, but it is substantial at this time when we all put unemployment at the top of our lists of priorities. Even a contribution as small as that is something that we ought not to turn down without considerable thought.

If I may, I will remind your Lordships of the present position of the licensing laws of this country. It is known to all of us, but to show how modest my Bill is, perhaps it would be helpful to have a reminder. We have a general pattern of licensing laws covering the whole of the country for the sale of intoxicating liquor. It applies to public houses, off-licences, restaurants and to many other places of entertainment. The hours of opening and the general conditions of all of these are laid down and we have all taken part, used them and know exactly what the rules mean. I want to emphasise that the general licensing position, such as I have described, does not come within the scope of my amendment at all. My Bill in no way affects the general pattern of licensing as we know it throughout public houses, restaurants, hotels and so on.

However, in the case of a limited number of hotels, restaurants, dance halls and cafes where entertainment and food are provided (that is the essential condition) it is possible under our present legislation for such places which provide entertainment and food to apply to the licensing magistrates, and having justified a need, to be granted under our present legislation special hours certificates or extended hours certificates which result in their establishments being able to continue selling liquor as part of the general entertainment between 12 o'clock and 2 a.m. Instead of ending at midnight they can, by obtaining one of the special certificates, be permitted to go on until two o'clock in the morning. This is a permissible part of the general pattern now allowed, which adds to the attraction and which helps to make the contribution from the entertainment industry that much more effective for most days of the year.

These certificates extend for two hours. They are available if one can justify to the magistrates a need for them. They are available for 310 out of the 365 days in the year. It is possible under present legislation to acquire these extra certificates, provided that the magistrate can be satisfied as to need, for 310 out of the 365 days in the year. This leaves 55 days on which the privilege cannot be obtained. Of the 55 days when this privilege is not available, 52 of them are Sundays. My proposed Bill does not affect Sundays at all. The 310 days plus the 52 Sundays will leave the legislative situation exactly as it is today. My Bill merely asks that three days, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Saturday—just three days out of the 365—should be given the same privilege as is given on the 310 days which we have accepted and used: a privilege which is already in existence in Scotland. This privilege, for which one has to satisfy magistrates as to need and the fact that the rules laid down are being adhered to adds up to an extension of two hours on three days only: six hours per year. This extension to the law as we have known it is all that my Bill asks for. I do not think that I am wrong in calling my Bill modest.

However modest it may be, and it certainly is that, my Bill makes a significant difference to the entertainment facilities that we in England and Wales can provide during the Easter holiday period, when all the other countries of the world, who are conscious of the importance of tourist income, are free from the present English and Welsh restriction. As I have said, Scotland already has that freedom. We all ought to be conscious of the importance not only of giving this facility in England and Wales that Scotland already has, but of the importance of putting nothing in the way of taking full advantage of the tourist income which is an integral part of this.

Taking Scotland again as an example, near neighbours of ours with a similar outlook, I do not think that anyone would say that in Scotland the Easter festival is taken any less seriously than it is here, or that the Scots are not as understanding of the need to recognise what would be expected during the days of that festival period.

Again I take it from the record of another place where it was said—I have not found any point where it can be contradicted—that in Scotland, since they have had this power (that we do not have in England and Wales) there has been a reduction of 49 per cent. in drunkenness-related offences, whereas during the same period there has been only a 12 per cent, reduction in England and Wales.

All my Bill amounts to is merely that it is at a magistrate's discretion to extend the licensing hours in a limited number of places where food and entertainment are part of the holiday pattern, for just six hours per year. If I may say so to my noble friend who is to reply from the Front Bench, I am hoping that the Government will see their way clear to help the passage of this amendment through the various stages in both Houses.

I have a feeling that the point that I am trying to include in this Bill is not completely out of sympathy with, at any rate, some of the thinking in Government quarters because I noted again that in the Hansard of November 30th, when a general application for licence restriction was asked for in another place, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office when replying had to say that he was not in a position to encourage a Motion which said that the general licensing hours in England and Wales should be revised. It is for that reason that I emphasise that there is no question at all in my Bill of the general licensing hours and the general position being altered at all; and in the 52 Sundays that will not be altered, either. The Under-Secretary in another place added what I thought were very practical words in saying that he could not give any encouragement to a general alteration in the licensing laws generally. He said: Very few of us in any area of policy can make a great march forward on all fronts, tackling every problem at a stroke". Then he added: A piecemeal approach is not to be condemned in what is essentially a practical job to regulate regulations". It was that very sensible and practical recognition that ironing out quirks in our legislation in no way commits anyone to overall alteration of the main principles—it was those words—which encouraged me to prepare this Bill and to bring it before your Lordships and ask for a Second Reading. This Bill, in the Under-Secretary's words, is a "very tiny, piecemeal approach and it certainly is confined to regulating regulations". It is with that interpretation of what I thought he was saying that I submit the Bill to your Lordships for a Second Reading with confidence. My Lords. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)

8.33 p.m.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, on what is certainly a modest but also an excellent Bill. He has been very careful to say that his Bill does not alter in any way the legislation which prevails at the moment to do with the sale of intoxicating liquors. He has emphasised that several times. It is a very curious area of legislation—the licensing laws of this country. Indeed, any visitor to these shores not familiar with our strange ways might well be excused for thinking that wherever we have something which has to do with objective morality—whether it be attitudes towards drink, prostitution or gambling—we get ourselves into a bit of a mess.

I am aware that there have been many attempts over the years to introduce a more up-to-date and logical approach to the whole business of the times when people can drink. It has proved to be very difficult ground on which to tread. This is because in our excellent democracy we have very active and very efficient minorities who hold very strong views; and it is quite right that they should do so. In this country there is a very strong minority opinion that the objective morality which relates to alcohol is very well served by what are, by any standards, archaic laws. It is going to be very difficult to change, and I think that in our democracy the only way we can do it is by gentle persuasion. I do not want to be rude to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, in suggesting that in his very modest though excellent Bill there is an element of cleverness here. I think that this is one way in which we may be able to chip away at the hard resistance to changing these very curious laws.

I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, although he has protested that he does not wish in any way to shake the present legislation, if I run briefly through one or two of the aspects of social behaviour which come to mind. Presumably, these laws were enacted in the first place to prevent any outbreaks of rowdiness or any outbreak of immoral behaviour. I think that perhaps rowdiness in this country has increased apace with the laws as they now stand. I believe that many people may take the view that the morality which obtained at the time these laws were introduced has already been eroded in many areas.

In the very shallow research that I must admit I have indulged in on this subject, I have been given some very curious reasons why these laws were introduced in the first place. One of the reasons I was given—and I am sure that it was apocryphal—was that on one occasion in our history we lost a battle possibly due to a shortage of ammunition. One of the reasons given for that was drunkenness in a factory, and so it was thought suitable at that time that we should introduce more stringent licensing laws. There may be some truth in that. It is certainly curious enough to match the whole curious nature of our laws.

I would suggest that this Bill be supported because, really, it is ridiculous that a foreigner who is prepared to spend his well-needed foreign exchange and who happened to be travelling through this country on Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, or Easter Saturday, should find that he was up against the impossibility of getting a drink if he were to go to a place of entertainment. Of course, that is absurd. But it is also absurd that tourists in this country should come here and be deprived of the possibility of drinking when they have a meal slightly outside the normal hours. The whole thing is absolutely trammelled with absurdity. But it would be unreasonable in our democratic society to be disrespectful of people's strongly-held views on the dangers of alcohol. I would suggest that there are things much more dangerous than alcohol at the present time and that we would be better served if we turned our legislative energies towards regulating those.

Without boring your Lordships further on this subject, because there is nothing contentious in this modest and excellent Bill, I should like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, already mentioned about Scotland, where these changes have taken place and where drunkenness has gone down. I suggest that if these laws were changed, if we could find some way of relaxing them and bringing them more into line with other civilised countries in the Western world, we would find that drunkenness would fall. We would find that perhaps even road accidents might decrease as a result of lessening the concentration of heavy drinking during the present licensing hours. I would suggest that the present laws relating to drinking have an indirect effect (and some people may consider it a direct effect) on violence, on football violence, on rowdy behaviour on the closing of pubs.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, must be congratulated on the Bill. I hope that the Government will see fit to support it if only for two reasons. First, obviously an absurdity would be corrected. Also perhaps in our tourist industry—which is a great asset for us, quite apart from those areas which the noble Lord already mentioned in terms of entertainment—it would do an enormous amount of good if we were to be seen to fall more in line with other countries in Europe. It would make it possible for tourists here to enjoy a drink with their meals in a relaxed way over an extended period.

Finally, to sum up, possibly in the society we are seeing now, which is changing very quickly, when we are all aiming more at unity of purpose and a general new ethos in the country, it is very suitable, especially as an example to young people, that we make efforts to relax laws of this kind and allow people to use their own sense of responsibility in deciding when and where they do things. This is so long as what they do does not obviously create increases in disorder, violence and immorality. I only hope that this excellent Bill will be a stepping stone from which we can move further and persuade some of those excellent and well-meaning bodies who oppose any changes, that indeed there would be some benefit in doing so.

8.41 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has presented his case very fairly and in measured language. I make no attempt to express an official response from this side of the House: I speak merely for myself. But I think it would be fair to say that there are on these Benches two powerful and opposing streams of thought which are relevant; and I would have thought that the two streams of thought are probably reflected on all sides of the House and in the country at large. Some of us on these Benches are conscious of the influence of the William Morris tradition and are attracted by the arguments advanced by the supporters of the Bill. Indeed, some of us will recall also the arguments that were advanced by the late Richard Crossman. The William Morris tradition and the Richard Crossman tradition place an emphasis on greater freedom, more happiness; an emphasis on leisure, gaiety and colour. Supporters of the Bill point out that it is manifest that the social and cultural attitudes of the country have changed a great deal during the last century: indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made that point.

There was a time when the place to be on Good Friday was in a religious service. I accept that is no longer so, and today a great number of people and their families take a long holiday from Maundy Thursday to Easter Monday, and during that long weekend many people want reasonably attractive facilities to be available. So the mood of many of my colleagues would therefore be encouraging to the promoters of the Bill. Nevertheless, the supporters of the Bill should not grow too hopeful because against this argument there stands the powerful tradition of the Church—although I note that their Benches are empty this evening—and on this side of the House some of us are very conscious of the tradition and the influence of non-conformity, and of the influence of the early Fabians.

The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, speaks of "these three days", and of course they are not just any three days. Good Friday is more than a holiday: it is a holy day. It is a special day which has been observed by Christians throughout the ages. So it is a very special day in the Christian calendar and a day of solemnity, a day of significance. Although I would agree that very few go to church with any kind of regularity, or frequency, we are not, at least as yet, a completely secular nation, and a large number of people do go to service on Good Friday and Easter. And for many who do not attend services on Good Friday and Easter, the day has not lost its special solemn significance.

I have never regarded myself as a very religious person—I am not a fundamentalist—but nevertheless I think a substantial number of people (it may be a minority but it is a substantial minority) believe that the character of Good Friday as we have known it should be preserved in a special way, and if Good Friday becomes just another weekday its significance will be irretrievably lost for many people. If that were to happen, we would believe that the country would be that much poorer.

So, faced as we are in this Bill with two opposing cultural attitudes, I do not myself believe that it is for legislation to lead the way. Legislation, I suggest, should only follow in this kind of area where we are satisfied that there has been a fundamental shift in cultural attitudes; so that, for example, we could call for legislation if there was a very strong public demand to change the law in the manner specified in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, in the earlier part of his speech in introducing this Bill, spoke of the "general circumstances" that were "well based": that was the phrase he used. I myself know of no great demand for the change, albeit only a modest change. To what extent is the licensed trade asking for it, and to what extent are the proprietors calling for such change? Are they criticising the law as being hypocritical, and are they demanding a change in the law because of that, as they were in London in 1949?

I believe—and I speak merely for myself—that this is a matter not just of judgment but of values, that Good Friday should be differentiated from the remainder of the days of the year. I do not myself find quite the same difficulty over Maundy Thursday and Easter Eve, but I think that Good Friday should be safeguarded.

I can only conclude by saying that it is very easy to destroy your heritage, but if it is destroyed I think that something of great value may be lost to future generations of this country.

8.49 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, when one or two are gathered together. I should also like to say that I think my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls is altogether too modest. His Bill proposes what many people would regard as a relatively minor amendment to the licensing legislation. Others would very definitely view my noble friend's proposal as the thin end of the wedge.

I find myself in a difficult position and I have a feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, shares the view that I express on behalf of the Government. We are a country in which our laws, our standards and our way of life are based essentially on Christian values and ideals. But it would be idle to ignore the fact that for an ever growing proportion of our population—and we are increasingly a pluralistic society—Easter is not simply a religious occasion: it is a holiday weekend. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that for some the long Easter weekend provides not only an opportunity for relaxation, but also a chance to enjoy whatever entertainments are available.

We have heard from my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that there is indeed a demand for late-night entertainments on Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Saturday, and he has explained that the restrictions in the licensing law—which curtail the hours during which alcohol may be served and entertainments provided on these three days—are seen by members of the dancing and entertainment industry as unfair and unnecessary. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, talked about the plight of the tourist. Let's face it—programmes designed to entertain us are shown on television on those days, as on any other, and many of us would not think twice about watching them.

It is inevitable that any attempt to increase the present permitted opening hours of licensed premises and registered private members' clubs will meet with opposition from those deeply concerned about the problems of alcohol misuse in our society. The Government are very much aware of the substantial social problems associated with that misuse, but that does not mean that we must look at every proposal to make changes to the present controls on the sale of alcohol as if every slight relaxation in those rules would automatically lead to scenes of Bacchanalian revelry and debauchery. Quite clearly, every proposal for change has to be considered objectively and on its merits. Moreover, every proposal has to be looked at against the recognition that we live in a changing society.

My noble friend's Bill seeks to enable those licensed and registered premises which provide entertainments to operate normally on the evenings of Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Saturday. The restrictions on permitted opening hours on Good Friday go back a very long way. Those on Maundy Thursday and Easter Saturday are of more recent standing and were introduced at the almost unanimous insistence of your Lordships' House during consideration of what became the Licensing Act 1961. I must say that that change in the law was not introduced at the instigation of the Government.

My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has also referred to the different laws which apply in Scotland and to the fact that Scottish legislation does not restrict late night entertainment on the days concerned. I am sure, however, that my noble friend will be among the first to recognise that there are many instances in which the laws north and south of the border are at odds. This Bill would have the effect of harmonising the liquor licensing laws for, at most, six hours a year, to quote his speech, but as he rightly pointed out his proposed amendment will leave the fundamental differences untouched. The question of equating Scottish law and drunkenness is not applicable to the Bill that we are discussing this evening.

To continue with the Scottish theme, my noble friend has referred to the extra employment opportunities that have arisen in Scotland following the changes in the Scottish licensing legislation. I should perhaps point out that the increase he quoted of 1,500 relates to all licensed premises throughout the year. I do not think my noble friend was suggesting that an extension of permitted hours on the days that his Bill encompasses would result in such a dramatic increase in the number of job opportunities, although of course every job opportunity is worth pursuing.

I do not think the Government can say that there is any reason of overwhelming political principle which would lead us to conclude that the proposals now before us should either be strenuously supported or resisted. In other areas of licensing for which the Government have overall responsibility, I cannot pretend that there is any consistent pattern which would cause us to say that what my noble friend is suggesting is wrong. There is, for example, nothing in the legislation controlling casinos, cinemas and theatres that requires those premises to close early on Maundy Thursday, Good Friday or Easter Saturday. But, at the same time, we recognise that there are undoubtedly many people, noble Lords among them, who would strongly oppose the proposals in this Bill on the grounds that they would be yet another encroachment into the fundamentally religious nature of the Easter weekend.

My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls rightly quoted my honourable friend the Under-Secretary as saying that a piecemeal approach to flexible licensing hours is not to be condemned. But my honourable friend's remarks in another place do not automatically mean that we support any piecemeal change, nor would the Government take a view where there are strong religious aspects, as would exist in the provisions in my noble friend's Bill. In the Government's view, it must be a matter of individual conscience and the will of the House whether these particular restrictions on the supply of alcohol and the provision of entertainments should be relaxed. It follows, therefore, that the Government's attitude towards my noble friend's Bill is one of strict neutrality.

8.56 p.m.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, it is very refreshing—and I shall certainly see that it is underlined in my biography—to have been accused of being unduly modest. I do not think that in either House I have had that charge thrown at me before, but it is rather delightful and refreshing to have it happen. I should like to thank all sides of your Lordships' House for the sympathetic and fair way in which your Lordships have accepted the general introduction of this Bill.

I found the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, particularly refreshing. His spontaneity and his view were obviously based upon a practical recognition of what we do today. I should like to say to him, as he did rather suggest that the terms of the Bill were unduly modest, that that was quite deliberate because I do not believe in misusing the parliamentary system. I believe that a Private Member's Bill which carries only one name ought to be modest and small. The presumption of wanting to make great changes is a misuse of the private Member's time. There are other ways of doing the big things and I did not want to abuse the private Member's procedure.

I was encouraged by our honourable friend in another place saying that he could not condemn a piecemeal approach. In the context of the rest of his speech, he gave some encouragement that, at any rate, the Government would not turn down piecemeal legislation if it had another good reason behind it, such as regulating regulations. I put that in the process of ironing-out quirks. But I was encouraged by what my noble friend said and I am hoping that, with that sort of reaction from the Government Benches, it has a good chance of getting through its various stages in this House.

Lastly, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I thought he was very fair and I accept absolutely his description of the various groups of feeling that exist not only on the other side of the House, but everywhere. I should like to assure him that, if I thought that the terms of this Bill would in any way interfere with the truly based religious significance of the Easter festival, he would not find my name on it. I do not believe that it even begins to have that sort of effect. Indeed, to refuse this modest and reasonable amendment in the light of today's way of life is more likely to hinder those who are still strict on not wanting any alterations, no matter how times change, by giving the appearance of prejudice instead of applying reasoned thinking to the matter. This may be one of the reasons why they sometimes do not make much headway in their true field of explaining the scriptures and presenting religion as it should be presented.

If one does object to this process of levelling out and gives an impression of prejudice against sensible acceptance of the situation as it exists today, that will do more harm to those who, like myself, recognise that the true meaning of Easter is not enjoying yourself, although it need not be separated from enjoying oneself. I do not believe that this amendment would in any way injure that. I am grateful for the sympathetic way in which my Bill has been received on all sides of the House. I beg to move that the Bill be now given a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Forward to