Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13th October], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

10.36 p.m.

I hoped last night to entice the Solicitor-General to commend the Bill to the House. I was out of order perhaps in doing so, because the Standing Order had not been suspended, but I hope that tonight I may entice him to do so.

This is a consolidation Bill, with corrections and improvements, so we know that the draftsmen realised that the law was imperfect and could not be consolidated as it stood. In the drafting and, later, during the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Consolidation of Bills, an extraordinary anomaly in the law was unearthed, which is now enshrined in Clause 5(3), dealing with the transfer of licences on death. Without going into the merits at all, I would say that it is a great pity that, this having been unearthed, we have to consolidate the law and perpetuate the anomaly.

I would have hoped that the Government would have said that it was untimely to consolidate until the law had been amended, but I suppose they were enthusiastic to consolidate the great social reforms of Gladstone in 1860. One of the Acts consolidated here is his measure against gin drinkers of the time and their disturbance of the neighbourhood with bawdy songs. We are joining that now with the present law against the menace of our time—pop music and noisy motor-cycles outside "calls", about which I am sure Gladstone would be delighted, but that is no excuse for perpetuating an anomaly in the law. When something like this appears in the early stages of this work, I would hope that legislation could be postponed for a time and the law amended, so that when it gets into a consolidation Measure it is in a satisfactory state.

10.39 p.m.

The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said yesterday that he hoped that I would commend the Bill to the House. In acting as I did, I sought to have regard to what I thought was the wish of the House, taking into account the time at which the Business was reached. I was content simply to propose the Question formally yesterday evening, but that meant no reflection, I hope it goes without saying on the usefulness of the Bill. The hon. Member said that the Bill will achieve some purpose and will be of considerable use, and I make it clear that I share that opinion.

He referred yesterday and again today to what he described yesterday as a gap and today as an anomaly in the law and said that this should have led us to have a consolidation Bill with Amendments. First, I should like to consider his proposition on the hypothesis, which in this instance I do not admit, that there is a gap or an anomaly in the law. I thought that he was in danger in this line of reasoning of appearing to argue that a consolidation Bill should not be introduced unless the law to be consolidated was in a perfect state. In my view that is not the way to make progress. It is surely better that a confusing mass of old Statutes should be replaced by a consolidating Statute containing the whole of the law on the subject in clear terms, even though it is arguable that that law can be improved. If the Law is defective here, it will be possible for it to be amended by a later Bill, and it is perhaps a suitable topic for a Private Member's Bill.

Having dealt with that, I turn to consider the hon. Member's suggestion that the law is defective and that there is either a gap or an anomaly. It is possible that I am not quite seized of the defect which he sees in the existing law, but a careful reading of the minutes of the evidence of the Joint Committee shows that it appears to have been satisfied with Clause 5 as it stands, and there is, as far as I am aware, no evidence that existing practices are causing trouble in this field.

Where the holder of a. late night refreshment house licence dies, the position is that on his death the licensing authority may by endorsement or otherwise authorise his personal representative or his widow or child if possessed of and occupying the premises to which the licence relates to continue to keep the refreshment house until the end of the following 31st March without taking out a fresh licence or paying any additional duty. In this connection it is important to recognise that there is no power under the existing law to refuse a licence. What one can do is to impose conditions upon the grant of a licence, and if the conditions are broken then there is the consequence of disqualification. The vital point is that in no circumstances can one refuse the licence. What the existing Bill provides in this connection is that if in the course of a year's current licence the licence holder dies, his widow or personal representative has the very small but not derisory advantage of the benefit of the licence for the balance of the year. She or the personal representative is not obliged to go immediately and get a new licence and pay—I believe that the present duty is one guinea per year—the full duty.

It may be thought that that is a reasonable enough way of dealing with the situation of the widow or personal representative of the deceased licence holder. If anybody else desires to get for himself a licence to run a late night refreshment house on the premises of the deceased licence holder, there is nothing to stop him from doing so. He can apply and the licensing authority has no mandate or power to refuse; and the only point that distinguishes him from the widow or personal representative is that he must pay the one guinea duty straight away.

In these circumstances, to speak about there being a gap or anomaly in the existing law—that is, unless I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's criticism—is, to say the least, putting it too high. To defer the advantages and usefulness of consolidation because of such a matter would be unreasonable and a disproportionate treatment of the matter.

My complaint is that the law, having given the licensing authority the right to transfer the licence to the personal representative, goes on to say that it can do so only if the personal representative is in occupation of the late night refreshment house. It is most unlikely that the personal representative, who might even be a bank trustee, would be in occupation. Thus, for the transfer period it would be of benefit for it to be transferred to the personal representative, although he may not be in occupation of the premises.

It seems that the hon. Gentleman and I are agreed that we are here dealing with a very narrow point. The advantage that is conferred is the advantage of not having to pay a new one guinea duty for the balance of the current year. I suggest that it is appropriate that that advantage should be confined to the personal representative in occupation, the widow or representative as the case may be. On that ground I do not accept the criticism of the hon. Gentleman and I certainly do not regard this as a matter which would justify the deferment of this process of consolidation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.…[Mr. Harper.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.