REPORT. Sir John Ganzoni reported from the Select Committee on the Oxford and St. Albans Wine Privileges (Abolition) Bill; That they had examined the allegations of the Bill, and found the same to be true, and had taken evidence thereon, which they had directed him to Report to the House, and had gone through the Bill and directed him to report the same without amendment. 23rd May, 1922. SIR JOHN GANZONI WAS CALLED TO THE CHAIR. [Adjourned till Wednesday, 17th May, at 12 o'clock. Oxford and St. Albans Wine Privileges (Abolition) Bill. Preamble read the first time. Mr. Bidder was heard in support of the Bill. Oxford and St. Albans Wine Privileges (Abolition) Bill. Question that the Preamble is proved, put and agreed to. Clause 3 considered and agreed to. Schedules read and agreed to. Ordered, To Report the Bill, without amendment, together with the Minutes of Evidence. LIST OF WITNESSES. Tuesday, 23rd May, 1922. T. William Seager Berry ... p. 8 HOUSE OF COMMONS. SELECT COMMITTEE ON OXFORD AND ST. ALBANS WINE PRIVILEGES (ABOLITION) BILL. The Petition for the Bill was read. Mr. BIDDER appeared as Counsel for the Promoters. Mr. T. SEAGER BERRY appeared as agent for the Promoters. Mr. Bidder.] May it please you. Sir. I appear here on behalf of His Majesty's Treasury to put the reasons for which this Bill is promoted before you, and I am somewhat on the horns of a dilemma, because, on the one hand, it is difficult properly to lay before you the elements of the question without going rather deeply into the licensing law, which I must frankly confess was not so clear to me yesterday morning as it is this morning. On the other hand, the very last thing I want to do is to weary the Committee by putting before them material which is already in their minds, and so I will try and strike a middle course, and I hope you will stop me if you think I am getting too prosy, or going into matters which you think it is not necessary I should put before the Committee. If I may, before I deal with the circumstances under which this Bill is promoted, I will very shortly outline what the circumstances of licensing with regard to intoxicating liquors are. The Bill, as you see by its title, proposes to abolish certain special privileges in that respect, which are now exercised by the Corporation of Oxford and the Corporation of St. Albans. Before a man may sell intoxicating liquor, which includes wine, in this country, he must obtain a licence from the Customs authorities, an Excise licence, and the amount that he has to pay for that, and the penalties which are incurred by selling intoxicating liquor without such a licence, are all laid down in the Licensing Act, 1910. That applies to all sales of intoxicating liquor. Before he can obtain from the Excise a licence to sell intoxicating liquor retail, he must obtain a licence from the Justices, and that obligation is put upon him by the Licensing Act, 1910, which was a consolidating Act, putting together the principal features that were contained in the past licensing laws, and introducing several new features. At that point one must know that selling by retail in this connection is not quite the ordinary meaning of the word. It is strictly confined to selling less than two gallons at a time or less than a dozen quart bottles, so that shops or merchants that one would regard in ordinary life as retail merchants do not come in as retail merchants under that Act. Thus it comes that for all public houses and all places where intoxicating liquor is to be sold, either to be consumed on the premises, or to be consumed off the premises but taken away in small quantities, a licence for that purpose cannot be obtained without first getting a licence from the Justices. I must add one small footnote to that, before I pass from it. It would sound, if that were strictly carried out, as though the ordinary wine merchant had to get a licence from the Justices, but that is not so, because there is a special reservation that where a dealer in wine, that is to say one who under the definition sells intoxicating liquor in quantities of more than two gallons at a time, uses his premises for nothing else, and they are not in connection with premises used for the sale of...any other article except 17 May 1922] mineral waters and things like that, he is then allowed to get a retail licence without having to go to the Justices, 60 that the ordinary merchant can get a complete wine licence without going to the Justices. Mr. Royce.] Will that licence include spirits as well as wine? Mr. Bidder.] Yes; he can get a licence for the whole thing. Mr. Samuel.] How do you define the word "wine "? Mr. Bidder.] It is defined in the Acts simply as wine coming from abroad. Mr. Samuel.] Would cognac or brandy come under this Bill? Mr. Bidder.] You mean can the Corporation of Oxford licence their people to sell wine, cognac or brandy? Mr. Samuel.] It would be called "wine," I should imagine. Mr. Bidder.] I should imagine it would include spirits, but I have not taken up that particular point. I do not find any more definition of it than that it is wine coming from abroad. Chairman.] We are not concerned with spirits or beer in this Bill, I take it? Mr. Bidder.] No. Well now, there are certain exceptions to this rule which I have just enunciated about having tỏ apply to the Justices for a licence before obtaining an Excise licence. Let me just put this before you, though I do not know that it affects the case very much. Theatres, restaurant cars on trains, passenger ships, army canteens, are allowed to obtain retail licences direct from the Excise without going to the Justices. Now there are four bodies who possessed very long ago the right to issue Excise licences, if I may call them so; they are not called that; I mean the right to issue licences for the sale of wine which otherwise would have to be got by Excise licence. That right carries with it a corollary that the persons whom they authorise to sell wine by retail do not have to go to the Justices-which is a very important corollary indeed. Those four bodies are the Corporation of Oxford and the Corporation of St. Albanswhich are referred to by this Bill-and the University of Cambridge and the Vintners' Company. A very important consequence of that is that many of the provisions of the Licensing Act of 1910 do not apply to the persons who obtain the licences from those bodies. For instance, from Section 65 onwards in the Licensing Act, 1910, those sections are >plicable to persons only holding [Continued Justices' licences. Section 57, for instance, is that the holders of licences shall not sell spirits to children or sell intoxicating liquor to children under 14 years of age unless it is in corked bottles. That is a very important provision. I think I might go through some of these sections, because they are a very important part of the argument, that persons licensed by these extraordinary bodies do not come under these restrictions. I will just turn to that Act and give you the effect of those sections. Chairman.] Is this part of your opening directed to showing the value of the privileges that are being taken over? Mr. Bidder.] No, it is directed to show that it is important that all retailers of intoxicating liquors should be brought under these provisions which are for the protection of the public and the State generally. Chairman.] So that the procedure should be uniform throughout country. the Mr. Bidder.] More than that. For instance, this provision that children shall not be served except in a corked bottle does not apply. We say it is very important that provisions like that should apply to all persons who retail intoxicating liquors. Mr. Royce.] Within those areas a child could obtain it from a seller of wine. Mr. Bidder.] From a seller of wine licensed by one of these bodies, it could obtain wine in a bottle that was uncorked. Mr. Royce.] Without any of the restrictions applying to the ordinary person licensed by the Justices? Mr. Bidder.] Without these restrictions which are in terms applied to the persons licensed by the Justices. I think it is important that I should go through them very shortly, so that you will see the type of condition that I am referring to. Section 65 is a penalty for selling liquor without a Justices' licence. Of course, that is not very important. Section 66 is the liability of the licensed person to a penalty for allowing drinking in That seccontravention of his licence. tion says: "If any person purchases any intoxicating liquor from the holder of a Justices' licence "-it only applies to them-" whose licence does not cover the sale of that liquor for consumption on the premises, and drinks the liquor on the premises where it is sold, or on any premises adjoining or near to those premises, if belonging to the seller of the 17 May 1922] liquor, or under his control, or used by his permission, or on any highway adjoining or near any such premises, and it appears to the court that the drinking was with the privity or consent of the holder of the licence who sold the liquor, the holder of the licence shall be liable in respect of each offence to a fine "-and then certain penalties are stated. The next section deals with the sale of spirits to children, but, of course, that does not concern us. Section 68 is: "The holder of a Justices' licence shall not knowingly sell or deliver or allow any person to sell or deliver, save at the residence or working place of the purchaser, any description of intoxicating liquor to any person under the age of fourteen years for consumption by any person on or off the premises, excepting such intoxicating liquors as are sold or delivered in corked and sealed vessels in quantities not less than one reputed pint for consumption off the premises only." That, of course, does not apply to licensing of this sort. Section 70 is: "A person shall not make or use or allow to be made or used any internal communication between any licensed premises and any premises, not being licensed premises, which are used for public entertainment or resort, or as a refreshment house." And then there is a fine for any contravention of that. Section 71 is: "An alteration in any licensed premises in respect of which a justices' on-licence is in force, which gives increased facilities for drinking, or conceals from observation any part of the premises used for drinking, or which affects the communication between the part of the premises where intoxicating liquor is sold and any other part of the premises or any street or other public way, shall not be made without the consent of the Licensing Justices given either at the general annual licensing meeting or at transfer sessions." I do not think I need go through them all. There is a section giving the police power to inspect which would not apply to these premises. Section 74 says that the names of the holder of a licence is to be affixed to licensed premises. That, of course, would not apply. Then Section 75 is: "The holder of a justices' licence shall not permit drunkenness, or any violent, quarrelsome, or riotous conduct to take place on his premises, or sell any intoxicating liquor to a drunken person.' I will not go further into it, but generally I want to impress upon the Committee that there are a number of [Continue provisions in the Licensing Act, 1910, which only apply to premises licensed by Justices, and therefore do not apply to premises licensed by these bodies. I will now, if I may, very shortly touch upon the history of how these curious provisions came about. Mr. Samuel.] Will this Bill in any way vary the terms under which sellers of wine will in future be able to sell their wine? Mr. Bidder.] In Oxford? Mr. Samuel.] Or St. Albans? Mr. Bidder.] Yes, it will, because it will bring them under the provisions I am alluding to. Mr. Samuel.] Yes, I know that. But so long as they come under those Acts it will not vary the terms of sale, it will not take away anything from them beyond bringing them within the terms of the Acts. Does it destroy anything that they have been accustomed to have? Mr. Bidder.] I think they will have to pay more for their licence, and of course these are restrictive provisions. I do not think I can say it will not take anything from them. They will be under restrictions which they are not under now. I do not suggest that they are of any importance commercially to the sellers of wine in Oxford at this moment. are probably well-behaved sellers of wine, and do not come under these penalties, and the restrictions would not be irksome. They Mr. Samuel.] That is what came into my mind. The Treasury comes along and buys out the rights of Oxford and St. Albans, and makes a bargain with those two corporations which satisfies them. But in what way, if it does, does it destroy any privileges or advantages which the sellers have had? Mr. Bidder.] May I put it in this way? It is only a penalty on anyone doing wrong. These provisions are aimed simply at wrongdoers. So long as the Oxford wine merchants-as I have no doubt at all they do-conduct themselves properly, they do not come under these penalties. These are provisions for public safety. For instance, there is the provision about not supplying a child with an uncorked bottle. The Committee would agree that is a provision which should be applied. Mr. Samuel.] But you say they will have to pay more? Mr. Bidder.] I think they will. Mr. Samuel.] They have done no wrong in paying less. They cannot be called wrongdoers. |