Orders of the Day — Civic Restaurants Bill – in the House of Commons am 12:00 am ar 31 Mawrth 1947.
Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 18, at end, insert:
and
(iii) a justices' licence granted under the Licensing Acts, 1910 to 1934, for the sale of intoxicating liquor in any such restaurant in England or Wales shall only authorise the sale of such liquor for consumption in the restaurant with a meal; and
(iv) such a licence shall not be granted in respect of any such restaurant established in premises forming part of, or used for the purposes of, any church, chapel or other place of religious worship or used for the purposes of any religious organisation, except with the consent of the incumbent, minister or other person in charge of the church, chapel or place of worship or, as the case may be, the consent of the religious organisation.
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The effect of these paragraphs is to make two provisos in the Clause dealing with the sale of intoxicating liquor. The first is of comparative substance; the other is very small. The first is that the justices may only grant a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor with meals. On the whole, we think this is a reasonable proposal, and we suggest that the House should agree with it. It has some disadvantages, which have been argued, and it has some adantages. I think it is true to say that in the vast majority of cases the civic restaurants will only desire licences of this kind and so we recommend the House to agree with the Amendment. The second proviso is intended to meet the very strong feelings of those connected with religious organisations, and it deals with those rare cases in which a civic restaurant is conducted on premises which form part of a religious foundation of one sort or another. In these cases, intoxicating liquor of any kind can be sold only with the consent of the authorities of the religious organisation concerned.
I am glad to say at this point that I believe this Amendment represents an improvement in the situation. The Minister spoke of this change as being of comparative substance, and he added that in the vast majority of cases, civic authorities would not desire to go beyond the new provisions. This seems to be a discovery which the Minister has made since we were discussing this matter previously in the House. On that occasion, the Minister put up a flat-footed resistance to every reasonable suggestion upon the matter. He sent the Bill away without any changes in this rsepect. Now he yields finally to the suggestions and proposals made in another place. If our Amendment had come back in the form we would have liked, I should not have indulged in any constitutional crisis, but my right hon. Friend is apparently prepared to accept, quite willingly, on the suggestion of another place, what he would not accord to any of us here. I feel I ought to say that his record in the whole conduct of this Bill is not one about which we shall have much enthusiasm.
I welcome this Amendment and I congratulate the Government on having brought it forward. I should like to raise with the Minister of Food a point as to the exact meaning of the words:
the sale of such liquor for consumption in the restaurant with a meal.
During the Second Reading Debate, the Minister of Food was very insistent in saying that he thought it would be a good thing for those who were taking a meal in the restaurant to be able to have a glass of beer with it. Does this Amendment really mean that no liquor will be served in civic restaurants, unless the person ordering the liquor is actually having a meal; or does it mean that if a person goes to the bar and has a sandwich, he may have as much drink as he pleases? That is a most important point. I should like an answer from the Minister of Food on whether the Amendment really means that an individual ordering liquor must have a substantial meal; because if it means that he has only to order a sandwich, the effect of this Amendment will be much less than it is meant to be.
I am sorry if I disturb this mutual admiration society which seems to be concerned because the Minister has not clamped down on this Amendment, from another place. The Minister resisted to the utmost limits, in Committee, the whole idea that this particular form of Amendment should be accepted by the Government. The hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) said the right hon. Gentleman had altered his opinion as a result of certain pressure. I say that the Minister has not altered his opinion one iota. If there has been pressure, it has been brought about by the Members of the Government. The Government have determined it for him, and he has had to come to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am maintaining this point because I feel as strongly one way on this matter as some hon. Members feel the other way. I have no shares in any brewery nor have I any other interest but a common interest in the folk who are to share the common benefits derived from civic restaurants. I believe that this will be a crippling Amendment in relation to the wellbeing and development of our civic restaurants, as indicated by the Minister when presenting the Bill. I discussed this matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Somerville Hastings) some six weeks ago. He is a former chairman of the L.C.C., and the L.C.C. have some excellent ideas, which sooner or later they will be able to develop. They have, since 1934, under a Socialist majority, developed a park in North London. Later the L.C.C. hope to develop another park in the Southern part of London—an excellent idea. In this particular park they themselves, as a county council, hope to do the job as direct contractors. In London parks today—Kensington Gardens, Hampton Court, wherever one cares to go—one may partake of a meal.
If you do not wish to partake of a meal and wish to ask for half a pint of lager, or a liqueur, or an aperitif—[Interruption.] These are the facts; if anyone wishes to partake of a drink without ordering a meal, one may do so without anybody saying, "By your leave," or "You must have a bun or a scone or a sandwich." The condition that will be imposed as a result of this Amendment is this: When the London County Council develop their various parks and catering schemes, one will be required to order a meal in a London County Council park to get a drink; but one will be able to go into another park, where the catering is done by Mecca or Lyons—and they are very efficient people—and get a drink without a meal. In those London parks where the L.C.C. do the catering, a person will have to order a meal if he wants to get a drink. I think this is an injustice, and I believe that the Minister thinks so too. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not be so keen on supporting the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. Hudson) in his ideas.
This matter goes a little further. When we look at the question of what is likely to be the function of British Restaurants, we have to take into account the fact that many of the local authorities will be catering for public dances, and other celebrations, such as weddings. It is fairly obvious—and Members opposite must be aware of this—that when there is a public dance today, the promoters of the dance announce the fact that liquid refreshments will be available, or that a licence will be applied for. They invariably use the phrase, "licence applied for," as an advertisement. It simply means that there will be something to drink. Let us consider what will happen. Assuming that a local authority has catering facilities in a public hall, and that the authority sublets the catering to a commercial undertaking, that undertaking can go to the local magistrates and apply for an occasional licence, for which, I think, they pay 10s. 6d. The local authority will be able to sub-contract, with the permission of the Ministry, to the commercial firm for 10s. 6d. the right to supply drink at a dance; but the local authority, who owns the hall, and probably provides the catering on six days out of seven, will not be able to provide a drink unless a meal is taken at the dance. That is wrong and unjust, and a crippling blow to the local authorities. Therefore, I believe that the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee, that there should be fair play for the local authorities, is the only argument which the House ought to accept.
Either we are going to be honest in our approach to this question of municipal undertakings and municipal enterprise, or we are going to accept the principle that commercial undertakings will have every advantage over the municipalities, who will only be able to supply a drink with a meal. Either we are going to play fair with the local authorities and give them the same opportunity that Lyons and other concerns have, whether brewers or public houses, or we are going to accept an Amendment from another place, which, in itself, is a crippling blow to the local authorities. I therefore hope the House will not accept the Amendment.
I think I support the hon. Gentleman the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) though his arguments were so overwhelming that I am slightly swamped by them at the moment. But I definitely support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor), and I do not think the Minister should permit this Amendment to go through in its present wording. My hon. and gallant Friend suggested that the words "substantial meal" should be used, but it is perfectly obvious that it is impossible to get a substantial meal nowadays. No doubt hon. Members will recall that many years ago there were certain houses of call where one might get a drink provided one also had something to eat. There was always a mysterious sandwich, and if one ate it, one became most unpopular. The sandwich, however, was always put in front of one with the drink, and that sandwich had to be paid for. If that were done, then the drinks were in order. I suggest that that is exactly what will happen in the civic restaurants. One will be told that a bottle of beer cannot be served unless one has a meal. One might then say "I am a very small eater, what is the smallest meal I can get away with?" and the answer will be "A sandwich," or, possibly, "a doughnut or a banana." That is a serious point, and will defeat the purpose—which I have no doubt the Minister desires—of permitting drinks to be served with a sit-down meal. Since the wording of the Amendment says merely "a meal" and not "a substantial meal" I can assure the Minister, from my own experience, that we shall be following a road which has been trodden already. People will go into civic restaurants, and will be provided with a musty old sandwich that has done duty for hundreds of drinks. One will be within the law and, presumably, everyone will be happy. I make no objection to that, but I do feel that there is some objection to indicating the intention in one way, yet using words which will make it easy to drive a coach and horses through the Clause.
I think this is a very good Amendment, and I think it will be for the courts eventually to interpret just what a "meal" is. We know perfectly well that under the licensing laws, meals have been interpreted as meaning sandwiches or anything light, but that is not the intention of this Bill, and I do not believe that local authorities will so interpret the Bill when it is passed. They will consider a meal to be what we all regard as a meal where one sits down to eat at a table—not just eating a sandwich at a snack bar. I feel that this Amendment is a step in the right direction. One fine day the courts will have to adjudicate upon the meaning of the word "meal." I should like to say that I have never been happy about the interpretation put by certain police courts in London on "bottle parties" and so on and so forth. This matter is going to arise, and in the interpretation of this Measure we shall find that the common sense of our courts will eventually say something similar to what a late Lord Chief Justice said, namely, that when one is drunk in charge of a car, "drunk means drunk." Some fine day it will be said that "a meal means a meal." From that point of view alone, I agree with the Amendment.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that most of us on these benches would agree with the description given by the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) of the Minister's conduct, although it is only fair to come to the right hon. Gentleman's defence on one small point. The hon. Member for West Ealing said that this Amendment had been discussed in Committee. It never was discussed in Committee, because it was never put on the Paper, but the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food must welcome it. I remember the panegyrics we heard about the desirability of having a drink with a meal.
As regards the second paragraph of the proposed Amendment, we are told the Minister was anxious to meet the opinions of religious bodies and so forth. I hope that no hon. Member of the present Government will try to get away with the idea that, by bringing in this proposal, they have avoided breaking the pledge which they gave at the General Election. That is not so. This merely prevents liquor from being sold in premises such as a church. It does not deal with the more important point, which is that the pledge at the General Election was that liquor should not be sold in a civic restaurant. Nothing which this Amendment contains removes the fact that there has been a broken pledge since the General Election.
I think the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) was very unkind to the Minister. I feel that a Socialist Minister would never be influenced by the kind of thing which the hon. Member suggested. But I would add that no hon. Member has given the real reason for this Amendment. Everyone knows that the Minister wishes to make these civic restaurants a success, and everyone also knows that there is a shortage of beer and stout. It would be an awfully bad advertisment for these restaurants if anyone should put up a notice in them to this effect:
No more beer. No more stout,
You put them in "—[Interruption].
Mr. Speaker, I think that you know the rest.