POWER OF POLICE TO ENTER CLUBS (Hansard, 27 July 1976)

§ Mr. Canavan
I beg to move Amendment No. 77, in page 72, line 36, after 'may', insert 'after obtaining the permission of the club secretary or a person authorised to act on his behalf,'.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this it may be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 78, in page 72, line 37, after 'club' insert 'without a warrant but only if he has reason to believe that the time that would elapse before such warrant could be obtained would prevent the enforcement of the provisions of this Act in said club'. No. 80, in line 38, after 'constable' insert 'with such permission'.

§ Mr. Canavan
Amendment No. 77 and the consequential Amendment No. 80 have as their object restricting the right of the police to enter a club. The amendments are basically to preserve the status quo.
I have a constituency interest in this matter as I have many clubs in West Stirlingshire—miners' welfare clubs at Bannockburn, Plean, Fallin, Cowie and Kilsyth; the British Legion Club at Kilsyth and masonic clubs at Bannockburn, Denny, Kilsyth and Bridge of Allan; Kilsyth Rangers Club and Kilsyth Celtic Club; Cambusbarron and Bonnybridge social clubs; and works clubs such as the "Cork and Seal" at Bridge of Allan.
That is a great collection and you will realise, Mr. Speaker, that I have had representations from some of them about what they consider to be an invasion of the privacy of clubs as a result of Clause 114. I have also had representations from the Club and Institute Union.
To be fair I have also had representations the other way from the Scottish Licensed Trade Association. I received a letter from Mr. Gordon, the Chairman of the Clackmannan and Stirlingshire Branch of the Licensed Trade Association, urging me to withdraw my amendment to delete Clause 114 because the association believes in liberalising all 553 drinking but believes in supervision, Including police supervision, anywhere where liquor is sold. In their opinion, that should include clubs.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that I am a politician who sometimes compromises, and I decided not to object to your not selecting Amendment No. 76 which would have deleted the whole of Clause 114. I hope that that compromise will satisfy Mr. Gordon and his colleagues in the Clackmannan and Stirlingshirc Branch of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association. I am prepared to accept Amendments Nos. 77 and 80 which provide a reasonable compromise.
It is important that hon. Members as well as members of the S.L.T.A. should recognise that there is a real difference between the pub and the club. The pub, as the name implies, is a public place, whereas the club, in theory at least, is an extension of the home. It has a registered membership and it is only registered members and signed-in guests who can enter the club, and consume liquor there. It is democratically managed by an elected committee who generally do a good job. They have an internal disciplinary system by which they can expel people who misbehave or ban people temporarily.
Many of the clubs do not merely concentrate on booze and bingo. Many provide welfare and cultural facilities. I cite the Bannockburn Miners' Welfare, my own club, as an example. They have indoor bowls and angling. I do not mean that the premises are used for angling but that there is an angling section within the club.
The premises have been used for football changing accommodation. The local authority has only recently provided accommodation of its own. The premises are also used for a pre-school play group. The miners' welfare committee organises the annual children's gala and old folks' meals are served there twice or three times a week. The old folks' Christmas treat is held there annually. These gaps in local authority services are filled by the community services provided by this club and others. The real distinction between clubs and pubs is not recognised in the clause.
There is more of a family atmosphere in clubs, but it could be destroyed if 554 the clause goes through without amendment. Many club members are concerned at the possibility of serious inroads into their privacy. Under existing legislation, I understand that a policeman may enter clubs only with a warrant or when in pursuit of a criminal. The Bill proposes a right of entry for policemen at any time and for any reason. A constable may take the names and addresses of any person on the premises if he believes, for example, that a club is being mismanaged or that an offence is being committed in the clubs. The constable can take the names and addresses of club members who have not committed any offence if he has reasonable ground for believing that an offence is being committed somewhere on the premises.
This could create serious embarrassment and harassment and club members would resist what could become regular police raids. It would certainly spoil the atmosphere if one took one's wife to a club for a quiet drink and was interrupted by uniformed policemen going round the tables asking for names and addresses.
More important, it would harm the relationship between the police and the community, which should be based on mutual friendship and trust. One of my drinking friends at the weekend is a local policeman and I know that he would resent having to follow his inspector's orders to go into the local club and take names and addresses. It would spoil the very good relationship that he has with the community. At 11 p.m. closing time, which would be the favourite time for police raids, policemen have enough to do looking for real criminals and villains elsewhere without snooping around clubs and public houses.
The Government said they had made a slight concession in Committee by providing that only uniformed police officers should have the right of entry, but this makes it even worse. At least plainclothes officers could look relatively inconspicuous. The presence of uniformed policemen would destroy the whole family atmosphere in clubs.
Under my amendment, police officers who had a reasonable suspicion that something illegal was going on in a club 555 would be able to enter with the permission of the secretary or a person authorised to act on his behalf or with a warrant. A club's registration could be cancelled if there were proven abuses of the law. I understand that such abuses are very infrequent. In 1972, the number of reported abuses was 15; in 1973, the figure was four; and in 1974, it was 13.
8.30 a.m.
Finally I would refer to some of the comments when the 1961 Licensing Act for England and Wales was going through Parliament. The then Minister of State at the Home Office said that one of the most valued privileges of clubs was freedom from police entry without a warrant and that it was a privilege that should be retained.
When the matter was raised in the House of Lords the then Lord Chancellor, opposing a motion seeking to introduce the right of police entry into clubs, said that the Government could not accept the principle of entry by the police without warrant into club premises at any time, a proposal inherent in the motion. He said that the vast majority of opinion of all parties accepted that to allow the police to enter club premises at any time except for the limited purpose covered by the Bill would be unjustifiable interference with private liberties.
That was in respect of the Bill covering England and Wales. It is interesting to note, too, that, in respect of the Scottish Licensing Bill of 1962, the right of the police to enter clubs was defeated by the vote of Parliament. That was at the time of a Conservative Government. It would be ironic if a Labour Government in 1976 were to interfere with clubs, many of whose members are ordinary working people who would deeply resent this invasion of their privacy. I support this amendment and the consequential amendment and ask for support from all sides of the House.

§ Mr. Rifkind
The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) conjured up a terrifying picture of uniformed policemen, jackboots and all, invading indoor angling, including the kiddies' lounges, in his constituency. No doubt the local police force in his constituency might view with some alarm the inter- 556 pretation which the hon. Gentleman placed before the House should the clause go through in its present form.
The crux of the problem is based on the simple fact that there are two quite different types of club. There are the clubs to which the hon. Member for West Stiriingshire referred, which are completely legitimate clubs, anxious to observe the letter as well as the spirit of the law. But we know that there are equally other clubs which have largely grown up as a result of the many alterations in our licensing laws. They are clubs in the technical sense of the word but in essence they are drinking establishments which have grown up simply to provide alcohol. It is that type of club in respect of which the Government rightly wish to exercise greater control.
The question is how best this can be done in a way which will not jeopardise the legitimate interests of the proper clubs which do not seek or wish to break the law. For this reason I have put down Amendment No. 78, which seeks to provide a compromise, a middle ground, to try to deal with the problem which has been recognised by the Government. That amendment would allow a police officer in uniform to enter a club without a warrant only if he had reason to believe that the time that would elapse before such a warrant could be obtained would prevent the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill in that club. In other words, unless a police constable had reason to believe that the time which would elapse would frustrate his efforts, he would not be entitled to enter a club unless he had obtained a warrant.
That is a safeguard, because it would protect the position of the private, respectable clubs where a police officer would have little reason to believe that an offence had been, or was being, committed and even less that his enforcement of the law would be frustrated by the need to obtain a warrant. In practice, those clubs would have nothing whatever to fear.
Although, obviously, the amendment is not ideal, it seeks to meet the legitimate problem that the Government have described but without creating the very real sense of grievance and injustice felt by many of the respectable clubs. Therefore, if the House does not wish to accept 557 the amendment of the hon. Member, I hope that it will give the alternative amendment serious consideration. In some ways it is preferable in that it helps to recognise the problem which arises through the existence of two separate types of club.

§ Mr. David Steel
At 8.30 in the morning, after an all-night sitting, some strange alliances emerge. I agree both with the hon. Member for West Stirling-shire (Mr. Canavan) and with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). I regard these amendments as very important. If the amendment to delete Clause 114 had been selected—I do not complain that it was not, because it was fully debated in Committee—I would have supported it.
Some weeks ago I had a meeting with the Hawick Federation of Clubs. I must declare an interest as a member of three clubs in my constituency. In one town, membership of the Hawick Federation is 7,700. It impressed upon me the case for the maintenance of the distinction between a club and a pub. The starting point is that a club has control over its membership in a way that a pub does not have over its customers. Moreover, in a town like Hawick, if a member is suspended from a club because of bad behaviour, his name is circulated among the federation, so that he is kept out of other clubs as well. That is a strong discipline which does not exist among the pubs in the town.
The clubs are very varied in character. I have even had correspondence on this issue from the Selkirk Conservative Club and the Innerleithen Unionist Club. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) chastised the Church earlier for having written to him on only one matter. The only correspondence I have had with those two clubs has been over the matter of drinking. No doubt they are interested in other matters, and I do not blame them for expressing concern on this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are your clubs?"] My three clubs are the Galashiels Liberal Club, the Hawick Liberal Club and the Jedburgh Liberal Club.
Clubs have a real community function. Since I have been prompted, I would point out that the Galashiels Liberal Club has just won a prize as the ace of 558 clubs for raising a record amount to help fight muscular dystrophy—£1,500 in three weeks. This real club atmosphere in a community is of value, but the hon. Member for Pentlands put his finger on the point, which was the answer to what the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire said about the debates in 1962.
Having read the Committee debates, I accept that there has been a tremendous growth in recent years in clubs existing for the purpose of drinking rather than for purposes of good fellowship. If that is a problem, it is a criticism of the licensing system itself. It is entirely wrong that because of this development in some parts of the country good, long-established, bona fide clubs should be penalised by the introduction of legislation like this when the real problem lies in controlling the mushrooming of clubs which are not genuine, if the Government feel that they exist.
The police have adequate powers to enter a club if they feel that an offence has been committed. Although I pay tribute to the management of most of the long-established clubs in my constituency, sadly in the last 10 or 11 years I have known of one or two cases of prosecution, one for transgression under the betting and gaming laws. Another concerned the hours of drinking, and in that case the club lost its licence. I therefore do not pretend that there are not occasions when a club falls under bad voluntary management. My point is proved by the fact that the police were able to take action. No case has been made out by the Government showing that the police are powerless, because they have used their existing powers.
Clause 86 defines the powers of the police to enter unlicensed premises where they suspect that alcoholic liquor may be being consumed. We find spelt out there much more generous treatment of public premises. A warrant is required, and so on. I see no reason why that wording should not have been applied to the clubs. If it had been, it would have left the law largely as it is now.
The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire has raised a serious matter. If this kind of measure is introduced without serious thought being given to it by the House, it may result in a deterioration in relations 559 between the police and the public. People believe that if they go to their clubs and behave properly they should not expect uniformed police to come in. This is a new departure which does not exist in the law of England. I am all for pioneering in the law of Scotland, but this is the wrong way to pioneer.
I think that the House would be well advised to support Amendment No. 77 or, if that were to be defeated, Amendment No. 78. That is the course I propose to follow.

§ Mr. T. W. Urwin (Houghton-le-Spring)
I intervene in the debate in the full knowledge that I am not a Scottish Member of Parliament representing a Scottish constituency and did not serve on the Standing Committee. Having, however, sat through the long hours of the night and listened intently to the debates on the multiplicity of amendments which have been moved, I wonder why we cannot have the law of universality applied to licensing laws throughout the United Kingdom. I am sure that everybody would be a good deal happier if that were the position.
I hope that in the circumstances my lion. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Canavan) and the rest of my right hon. and hon. Friends will not form the opinion that I am fishing in prohibited waters. I know that when my hon. Friend is not fishing he is frequently mending his nets. That is his business.
I am concerned about Clause 114 and the serious implication contained therein regarding the automatic right of entry of the police into clubs, but more especially working men's clubs. My hon. Friend has properly and justifiably gone to some lengths to point out that a club is not only a respectable place catering for respectable people and in which there are very few cases of drunkenness, but that it is frequently the hub—indeed, the very axis—around which community life revolves in many places, and certainly in small villages.
I became even more concerned when my hon. Friend referred to the discussions he had had with representatives of the Club and Institute Union Ltd. The House should bear in mind that just 560 over 4,000 clubs are affiliated to the union—I stand to be corrected—and that 100 of them are in Scotland.
It is within my knowledge and surely that of the majority, if not all, of my right hon. and hon. Friends that, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Pebbles (Mr. Steel), the clubs are invariably well managed. They have a high degree and a well-formed code of discipline. When members fall from grace—for example, if they are guilty of serious misdemeanour—the club management committee has power under the rules to exclude them from membership. That applies throughout the federation clubs in the areas concerned.
The question of the automatic right of entry by the police has always been vigorously resisted by the Club and Institute Union Ltd.—certainly by the member clubs throughout England. If there is a fracas or disturbance in a club, the police should enter only at the request of the club secretary, chairman or other responsible member of the committee acting on behalf of the management. That is a fundamental right of members of working-men's clubs. I fear that if the amendment is not accepted there may be a departure which will be strongly resisted when we discuss the future licensing laws of England. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will consult the officials of the union to discover their attitude to the amendment.

§ Mr. Monro
A number of eloquent speeches were made in Committee on this issue. Like the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), I have received a number of letters from clubs, including some from his constituency. I also received some from Lanarkshire, Perthshire and all points on the Scottish compass. The clubs which I have personally visited are extremely well run. One of the advantages of belonging to a clubs is that a committee vets applicants for membership in order to maintain a high standard.
At its conference in Blackpool in the spring, the Club and Institute Union Ltd. was emphatically against the police being given the right to enter clubs without a warrant. In Committee we were disappointed at the Minister's attitude, although he has tabled his promised amendments 561 which establish that police officers must be in uniform. In the light of the evidence, I support the amendments which would prevent police from entering a private club without a warrant for that purpose.

§ Mr. Robert Hughes
Like many hon. Members I have received representations, and I suppose that I should declare an interest as a member of two clubs in my constituency. I have received representations from the Club and Institute Union Ltd. about the entry of police officers to licensed premises.
The burden of the union's argument is that a club is so private that it is an extension of an individual's home—but that is too tight a definition. It is not simply that many clubs which have grown up are merely drinking places. Most clubs provide entertainment. There is a growth in the number of clubs which began as purely drinking associations, while at the same time even established clubs are extending their range of activities and providing more entertainment. The balance of the argument is shifting towards the club being an extension of entertainment rather than an extension of the home.
We cannot necessarily rest on the previous arguments about privacy. I believe that the fact that a uniformed constable has the right of entry at any time could well, in certain circumstances, improve relations with the management. We all rightly have a healthy disrespect for the police in that they represent a kind of authoritarianism which some of us suspect might be used in a way alien to the true purposes of the police. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) grimaces from a sedentary position, but I think that that is a common feeling.
Having considered all the arguments, I believe that on balance it is probably better to support Amendment No. 77.

§ Mr. Harry Ewing
It is a wise Minister who knows when he is on a loser, and I know that I am on a loser now. If all the amendments are withdrawn, we shall give an undertaking to reinstate the original position. I think that that would be the best course.

§ Mr. William Ross
Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I express the hope that he will appreciate that we have heard a great deal about the Guest Committee 562 and the Clayson Committee tonight? It was the recommendation of both those committees that this should be done. No arguments have been heard tonight in support of what was said by the Clayson Committee, the Law Society of Scotland, the Association of County Councils in Scotland—

§ Mr. Fairgrieve
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is asking the Minister a question after the hon. Gentleman has sat down.

§ Mr. Ross
I was asking my hon. Friend to take account of those views, Mr. Speaker. I think that I am still entitled to speak in this House.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Of course the right hon Gentleman is entitled to speak, when he is called, but I understood that he said "Before my hon. Friend sits down". In that case, he must be treated the same as every other Member.

§ Mr. Harry Ewing
We have taken account of what Guest and Clayson said and of what the Club and Institute Union Ltd. said. We had a long meeting with the CIU at St. Andrew's House.
I think that I have the sense of the House, and for that reason I propose to proceed as I have suggested.

§ Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier (Sunderland, South)
Before my hon. Friend sits down, will he make it absolutely certain that what he is saying means that we return to the situation in which a warrant is required before police may enter a private club?

§ Mr. Ewing
That is the position.

§ Mr. Dalyell
My constituent Mr. William Meikle, of The Rendezvous in Bathgate, who occupies the position of vice-president, Mr. James Boyle and others in West Lothian have said that the one thing they really want pressed is opposition to this amendment. If the clubs have nothing to worry about and are doing everything right—and this is the question the publicans ask—why do they feel that they should be treated differently from those who run public houses? That is a question that has to be answered at some stage.

§ Mr. Canavan
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his generous and realistic concession. I am only sorry that we do not have the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kulmamock (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).

§ Mr. William Ross
The Scottish Trades Union Congress took the view that if clubs were being properly conducted within the law they could have no possible objection to the police being given the right of entry. There is a considerable list of people in support of the Government's original position who have not been mentioned yet.

§ Mr. Canavan
One could equally argue that a man sitting at home with his wife and family need have nothing to fear from a proposal to give the police power to enter his home without a warrant, but he would still resent such a proposal. That is the logic of the argument of my right hon. Friend and of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian.

§ Mr. McCartney
Have not successive Ministers in successive Governments stated that they were not required to accept the recommendations of such bodies?

§ Mr. Canavan
That is perfectly true.
I should like to thank the Minister and Members of all parties, with the exception of the SNP, which has not given a view on the subject so far, and my colleagues south of the border, who are naturally involved too, for their support. I conclude by asking my hon. Friend to give me a straightforward "Yes" or "No" to my question: will he now give a 100 per cent. guarantee that an amendment will be introduced in the Lords to restore the status quo—not the original proposals of the Bill but the present position as it exists in law—in respect of the rights of the police to enter clubs?

§ Mr. Harry Ewing
For the third time, I give my hon. Friend the assurance that we shall reintroduce the status quo.

§ Mr. Canavan
I thank my hon. Friend very much. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.