HC Deb 03 November 1976 vol 918 cc1561-7

Lords Amendment: No. 42, in page 72, line 36, leave out Clause 113 and insert new Clause B— B.—(1) If a justice of the peace or sheriff is satisfied by evidence on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing—

  1. (a) that any registered club is being so managed or carried on as to give rise to a ground of objection to the renewal of its certificate of registration, being one of the grounds of objection specified in section 107 of this Act; or
  2. (b) that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed in any registered club;
he may by warrant authorise a constable to enter the premises of such club at any time, if need be by force, and to search the premises and seize any documents relating to the business of the club and to take the names and addresses of any persons found in the premises. (2) If any person found in the premises of a club refuses to give his name and address on being requested to do so by a constable acting under a warrant granted in pursuance of the foregoing subsection, or gives a false name or address on being so requested, he shall be guilty of an offence.

Mr. Millan

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 49 and 50.

Mr. Millan

Lords Amendment No. 42 makes the provision in the Bill about the power of the police to enter a registered club similar to the provision in existing legislation—namely, that entry would be authorised only by a warrant from a justice of the peace or sheriff.

The amendment fulfils an undertaking given on Report by my hon. Friend who, incidentally, is not here because he is suffering from 'flu. I am sorry that he is not here also for reasons other than humanitarian sentiments towards him. The amendment fulfils an undertaking which he gave on Report to maintain the status quo as regards police entry to registered clubs. It was clear on Report that there were strong feelings on both sides of the House that the rather more stringent provision that we were providing at that time was not acceptable.

We gave an undertaking that we would revert to the previous position, and that is what we did in the Lords. That is the effect of Lords Amendment No. 42.

The other Amendments, Nos. 49 and 50, are consequential to Amendment No. 42, and perhaps at this time I do not have to explain them in detail.

Mr. Thompson

I have to admit that, due to the late hour at which the matter was debated on Report, I was taken somewhat aback by what happened. We had all been assured, I think, that the Government were determined that the main provisions of the Bill were unalterable, and therefore it was a surprise to me when I found the Government caving in to pressure on this matter. I regret that I did not intervene in that debate to make my point clear. One advantage of having a second revising Chamber is that it gives us a chance to come back to something we may have missed, as a result of sleepiness, on an earlier occasion.

I should like to see Clause 113, as it stood when the Bill went to the Lords, becoming the law of the land, because I think that the law ought to be the same for people who do their drinking in pubs as for people who do their drinking in clubs. I do not see why we should make flesh of one and fowl of another.

There was a great deal of argument about the fact that the club is an extension of the home. Some of us do not have that extension to our home, therefore we are unable to benefit from it. In fact, I am told that there are no clubs in St. John's town of Dairy. We have to entertain our guests at the local bar in the hotel. Therefore we shall not have the advantages that people in clubs will have if the Lords amendment is agreed to.

It seems to me that a well-conducted club would have nothing whatever to fear. I do not for a minute think that, even if we had adhered to Clause 113 as it stood in the Bill, the police would have spent their time prying into clubs that they knew to be perfectly well conducted.

I must therefore record my opinion that we ought to keep Clause 113 as it was, and that we ought to disagree with the Lords in this amendment.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison

I thank the Secretary of State for putting the provision back in the form in which it left this House. I thank him on behalf of the New Club, the Western Club, the railwaymen's clubs, the golf clubs and the policemen's clubs. He was absolutely right.

Mr. Canavan

I, too, should like to put on record my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), who unfortunately is not able to be with us tonight because, as I understand, he has influenza.

Earlier this year the Under-Secretary and I attended a meeting in Bannockburn Miners' Welfare Club, at which there were representatives from most of the clubs in Stirlingshire. They put several points to us, related to the Bill, about which they were genuinely concerned.

One of the points related to the original Clause 113, which proposed the right without a warrant of police entry to clubs. At present the police require a warrant in order to enter a club. Under the original Clause 113 as proposed, such a warrant would not have been necessary. I therefore tabled an amendment on Report to preserve the status quo in regard to police entry. One of my amendments was to delete the whole of Clause 113. Another was to allow the police in only after they had a warrant. After receiving assurances from the Secretary of State that a suitable Government amendment would be tabled in the Lords, I withdrew my amendments. I therefore welcome this Government amendment, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to support it.

11.15 p.m.

The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) asked why we did not have uniformity with regard to the rights of police entry in respect of pubs, clubs and other licensed establishments. With respect, there is a big difference between a pub and a club. As the name implies, a pub is a public place. A club is not. The only people allowed to drink in a club are registered members and their guests. Every club has a registered list of members, and it is only people whose names and addresses are on that list who, with their signed-in guests, are allowed legally to drink in the club. There is that big difference. There is a check on the people in a club at any one time. Not anyone can walk into a club, as he can into a public house.

The club is also different from the public house in that it is run by a democratically-elected committee, and that committee is responsible for the internal discipline structure of the club. Most clubs are very well run with this internal discipline structure. I know of one area in my constituency where, if a person is suspended or expelled from one club in the town because of bad behaviour, the other clubs also operate the suspension or permanent ban.

There would be genuine concern amongst many club members in Scotland if the police were coming in, especially at 11 o'clock at night, and badgering people by asking their names and addresses, and so on. It would do a great deal to destroy the generally good relationships which exist between the police and the community. The police are better engaged in looking for real criminals, especially at 11 o'clock at night, than in going round badgering people in clubs. If they have genuine grounds for suspicion, they can apply for a warrant, as the Lords amendment proposes.

This is the second time tonight that I have supported a Lords amendment. On the previous occasion I mentioned that I was supporting the Lords amendment rather than the Labour Government. I never thought that I should live to see that day. It may be an indication of how far to the right this Government have gone. I am glad that they are moving back a bit to the left in the shape of this amendment, and I happily give them my support.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

We have just witnessed an example of the remarkable faith that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) has in the House of Lords. When this matter was discussed on Report although he received an assurance from the Government, it was entirely dependent on the good will of the Lords passing the amendment which the Government wanted.

We have to remember, however, that when the assurance was given, it was not given on the basis of argument. It was given because the Under-Secretary in charge of the Bill knew that he was on a loser. He argued against the case at present before us but said that he knew that he was on a loser.

Before we make a decision on this matter, we ought to know whether the police have expressed any views on it. I accept that there is a problem in that there are two different kinds of clubs. There is the bowling club, for example, where members can play bowls and then drink. There are also drinking clubs throughout Scotland. If there is reasonable suspicion that an offence is being committed in a club is it fair to insist on a search warrant being obtained, bearing in mind that it may take considerable time and that by then the cause of the offence may have disappeared?

Have the Police Federation, the chief constables or any other group expressed a view on this matter? If so, what is it?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Edinburgh, West)

Is it not the case that the Chief Constable for the Lothians expressed to the Government his forcible opposition to the deletion of Clause 113, and that he made it clear that if the clause were deleted the job of the police would become more difficult? If when trouble blows up in a pub the police are compelled to get a warrant, by the time they return with it the troublemakers will have disappeared and the police will be unable to follow up the incident successfully.

Was not this matter dropped on Report because if it had not been dropped the whole Bill would have been at risk? Surely, if members of clubs are behaving themselves properly they have nothing to fear.

Mr. Millan

We have had a short rehearsal of the arguments which were advanced on Report. There is a respectable case for the original clause. If there were not, it would not have been in the Bill in the first place.

It is a very powerful argument to say that if a club is well managed it has nothing to fear from police entry. But surely there is a powerful argument, too, that a club is entirely different from a pub, and that if the members are behaving responsibly and reasonably and are enjoying themselves, they should not have to put up with the unrestricted entry by the police. We have to make a judgment between these arguments. The chief constables would like unrestricted right of entry. If there is trouble the job of the police is made a lot easier by that. But that is not the only consideration. We have to balance that against the interests and rights of the club members.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) said that the Government had dropped the proposal on Report because it looked as though we would be defeated. That is saying that the House was against the proposal. But the House did not pass an amendment which was defective in certain respects and which would have had to be adjusted in the other place. Instead my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary sensibly said that if my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) would drop his amendment the Government would introduce a similar provision in the other place. As is usual in such a situation, the other place co-operated, and we therefore have the amendment. I appreciate that not all hon. Members like it, but I commend it to the House.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 74, Noes 8.

Division No. 372.] AYES [11.23 p.m.
Archer, Peter Carmichael, Neil Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
Ashton, Joe Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) English, Michael
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Cocks, Rt Hon Michael Evans, John (Newton)
Bain, Mrs Margaret Cohen, Stanley Forrester, John
Banks, Robert Coleman, Donald Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Bates, Alf Corrie, John Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Beith, A. J. Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Gourlay, Harry
Brotherton, Michael Crawford, Douglas Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Brown, Hugh D. (Proven) Deakins, Eric Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Buchan, Norman de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Harper, Joseph
Campbell, Ian Dormand, J. D. Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Canavan, Dennis Eadie, Alex Hunter, Adam
Hutchison, Michael Clark Miscampbell, Norman Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Judd, Frank Ogden, Erie Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Knox, David Palmer, Arthur Strang, Gavin
Lambie, David Penhaligon, David Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Lamond, James Prescott, John Urwin, T. W.
Leadbitter, Ted Reid, George Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Lester, Jim (Beeston) Rifkind, Malcolm Wise, Mrs Audrey
McCartney, Hugh Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) Woodall, Alec
McElhone, Frank Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) Woof, Robert
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Sainsbury, Tim
McNamara, Kevin Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Skinner, Dennis Mr. A. W. Stallard and
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Small, William Mr. Ted Graham.
NOES
Doig, Peter Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Henderson, Douglas Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and
Knight, Mrs Jill Watt, Hamish Mr. George Thompson.
Le Marchant, Spencer Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Forward to